Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for Comment; Driver Monitoring System (DMS) in SAE L2 Driver Support Systems

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

April 10, 2026

Issuing agencies

Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Abstract

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. This ICR is for a new collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval for a one-time voluntary experiment on drivers' interactions with SAE Level 2 (L2) systems equipped with Driver Monitoring Systems (DMS). A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting public comments on the following information collection was published on August 5, 2025 (Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0056), and NHTSA received one comment.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 69 (Friday, April 10, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18524-18529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-07017]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0056]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for
Comment; Driver Monitoring System (DMS) in SAE L2 Driver Support
Systems

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

[[Page 18525]]

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on a request for approval of a
new information collection.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
this notice announces 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. This ICR is for a
new collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB
approval for a one-time voluntary experiment on drivers' interactions
with SAE Level 2 (L2) systems equipped with Driver Monitoring Systems
(DMS). A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting public comments on the following information collection was
published on August 5, 2025 (Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0056), and NHTSA
received one comment.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 11, 2026.

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
<a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. 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 Jeff Dressel, Office of Vehicle Safety
Research (NSR-310), 202-493-0492, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, W46-439, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

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
OMB.
Title: Driver Monitoring System (DMS) in SAE L2 Driver Support
Systems.
OMB Control Number: New.
Form Number(s):
There are multiple forms for this new information collection,
including:

<bullet> NHTSA Form 1830: Eligibility Questionnaire--Focus Groups
<bullet> NHTSA Form 1831: Informed Consent--Focus Groups
<bullet> NHTSA Form 1832: Outline--Focus Groups
<bullet> NHTSA Form 1833: Eligibility Questionnaire--On-Road Study
<bullet> NHTSA Form 1834: Informed Consent--On-Road Study
<bullet> NHTSA Form 1835: Perception of Risk
<bullet> NHTSA Form 1836: Grip Strength Measurement
<bullet> NHTSA Form 1837: Trust in Automated Systems
<bullet> NHTSA Form 1838: Onboard Monitoring System Acceptance Survey
<bullet> NHTSA Form 1839: System Understanding Questionnaire
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2189--Study Drive Form
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2190--Debriefing Form
Type of Request: Approval of a new information collection request.
Type of Review Requested: Regular.
Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from date of
approval.
Summary of the Collection of Information: This is a new information
collection request (ICR) seeking approval to conduct 14 new voluntary
information collections as part of a one-time research study of
drivers' interactions with SAE Level 2 (L2) systems (i.e., provide
longitudinal [adaptive cruise control] and lateral [lane centering]
control of the vehicle) equipped with driver monitoring systems (DMSs).
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the U.S.
Department of Transportation is seeking to conduct the research study
involving up to 264 licensed drivers, aged 18 and above, from Phoenix,
Arizona and across the U.S. There are two portions of the study: one
portion of the information collection will be from focus groups, and
the other portion of the information collection will be from on-road
driving with the L2 DMS. For the focus group portion of the study, the
information collections involve reporting and include (1) an
eligibility questionnaire to be administered to up to 500 potential
research respondents; (2) an informed consent form to be administered
to up to 192 research participants; and (3) a total of 12 virtual focus
group sessions with 12 respondents per focus group. For the on-road
portion, the information collections involve reporting and include (1)
an eligibility questionnaire to be administered to up to 500 potential
research respondents; (2) an informed consent form to be administered
to up to 160 research participants. The research participants will be
asked to complete the following types of information collections: (3) a
risky driving questionnaire; (4) a grip strength assessment; (5) eye
tracker calibration and setup; (6) a vehicle familiarization and
training briefing; (7) a planned drive; (8) a trust questionnaire; (9)
a system acceptance questionnaire; (10) a system understanding
questionnaire; and (11) a final debrief.
Respondents are not required to participate in this study; it is
wholly voluntary. The collection is considered a reporting collection
using focus groups, multiple questionnaires, a grip strength
measurement, and one on-road in-study drive. The selected respondents
will be trained on one vehicle followed by the in-study drive. The
questionnaires will be administered upon enrollment in the study,
during the focus groups, prior to the in-study drive, and upon
completion of the study overall. Each of these collection components
will only be collected once, and the full study will only be completed
once. The focus group portion of the data collection will probe
respondents' opinions via discussion and a questionnaire regarding DMS
features, capabilities, strengths/weaknesses, uses/strategies that
deviate from intended purposes, reactions to human-machine interface
(HMI) strategies, and changes in their behavior associated with DMSs.
For the on-road driving portion of the study, respondents' naturalistic
driving data will be collected in the study-provided vehicles using
GoPro cameras and a device to measure where drivers are looking (eye
tracker). The questionnaires will assess respondents' risky driving
behavior and system trust, acceptance, and understanding.
NHTSA will use the information to produce a technical report that
will provide summary figures and tables, as well as the results of data
analysis of the information. No identifying information or individual
responses connected to identifiers will be reported. The technical
report will be shared across the Department of Transportation, and
members of the general public would have access to the aggregated
information when the final report is published. The report may also be
of interest to vehicle manufacturers and component suppliers (e.g.,
developers of DMSs). This project involves approval from an
institutional review board,

[[Page 18526]]

which the contractor has obtained. This collection will be used to
identify how the DMS ensures active engagement when L2 automation is
activated, strengths and weaknesses of different DMS approaches and
mitigation strategies when driver behaviors deviate from the intended
purpose of the system, how DMSs are implemented to minimize misuse and
abuse, and how DMSs support compliant driver behaviors.
Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: Vehicles equipped with Advanced Driver Assistance Systems
have the potential to decrease crashes and save lives. However, a
safety concern with some such vehicles is the changing role of the
driver from being an active operator to being a passive supervisor.
With SAE International's definition of Level 2 (L2) automated driving,
acceleration, braking, and steering support features are available to
the driver; however, drivers are supposed to remain alert, attentive,
and engaged with the driving task and external conditions at all times,
but they do not always do so. Disengagement from the active driving
task can result in the potential loss of system state information,
environmental awareness, and driving context that is available to an
engaged driver (Campbell et al., 2018). Such a loss of active
engagement could lead to drivers becoming distracted with secondary
tasks, reducing their glances to relevant portions of the roadway, or
even sleeping. Disengaged drivers pose a safety concern because they
may be unprepared to resume vehicle control when needed, even though
they are still responsible for taking over the L2 Dynamic Driving Task
(DDT) if the partial driving automation functions cease (SAE J3016,
2021). This is not a theoretical problem, as crashes and fatalities
have already occurred in which driver disengagement under L2 driving
was a likely contributing factor.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ E.g., see: ``inadequate safety culture created conditions .
. . that contributed to the circumstances of the crash . . . .''
National Transportation Safety Board, Collision Between Vehicle
Controlled by Developmental Automated Driving System and Pedestrian,
viii. (Nov. 19, 2019), available at <a href="https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/reports/har1903.pdf">https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/reports/har1903.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to these concerns and incidents, automakers have
included driver monitoring systems (DMSs) as part of their L2
offerings. DMSs are part of a broader approach to attention management
and are designed to detect when the driver is disengaged from the
driving task while using L2 driving automation (Mueller et al., 2021).
Current implementations of L2 DMSs are designed to infer driver state
and include both vehicle (e.g., speed, road type) and trip-level data
(time of date, time on road, weather), as well as incorporate
strategies that provide more direct measures of driver state by
detecting whether or not the driver's hands are on the wheel, or
detecting (using cameras) whether or not the driver is attentive to the
roadway.\2\ Critically, assessing the efficacy of a particular approach
to implementing a DMS must be considered holistically with respect to
the larger L2 ecosystem, including considerations of the driving
environment and conditions under which L2 driving can take place,
design features of the L2 technology itself (including the HMI),
mitigation strategies if disengagement is detected, and known methods
that drivers use to circumvent the DMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ These L2 DMSs are distinct from DMSs that do not support L2
operation, and measure driver state (e.g., fatigue, drowsiness,
impairment) more generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This data collection will directly support NHTSA's research efforts
regarding (1) DMS implementation strategies to ensure active engagement
by drivers, (2) DMS approaches to address driver behaviors that deviate
from the intended purpose of the system including misuse and abuse, and
(3) the relationships between the underlying L2 technology, the
supporting DMS technology, and the HMI that is intended to aid and
encourage proper driving behavior and potentially discourage misuse or
abuse. If the proposed study is not conducted, NHTSA will have
unanswered questions regarding the interrelationships among the broader
L2/DMS/HMI ecosystem, and how well DMSs in SAE L2 implement distraction
detection strategies, detect unintended uses of the system, and are
efficacious under known use cases involving drivers trying to
circumvent the DMS.
60-Day Notice: NHTSA received one public comment from the Alliance
for Automotive Innovation that included several statements in response
to the 60-day notice. Each of these is addressed below.
Alliance for Automotive Innovation voiced concern that ``the pace
of innovation by manufacturers may limit the utility of the agency's
findings, depending on how quickly the research can be completed.''
NHTSA appreciates and understands the rationale behind this
recommendation and will make efforts to ensure the research will
reflect the DMS approaches taken by manufacturers in the most recent
model years available and will be conducted as quickly as feasible.
Alliance for Automotive Innovation voiced concern that the scope
and duration of the naturalistic driving portion of the study may
reduce the overall usefulness of the data. Alliance for Automotive
innovation also voiced concern that ``the proposed 55-minute planned
drive may not be sufficient to determine how drivers interact with L2
systems and results could be potentially misleading due to the
potential for measured responses (e.g., glance behaviors) that differ
from those that the same driver might exhibit if they had more time and
exposure to the system.''
NHTSA will ensure that limitations of this study will be documented
during the conduct of the research project. NHTSA clarifies that
participants in the on-road portion of the study will include
individuals with L2 experience. Specifically, 50% must not have driving
experience with the L2 ADS driver support features that their test
vehicle is equipped with, nor previous driving experience with the test
vehicle model, and 50% must have driving experience with the L2 ADS
driver support features that their test vehicle is equipped with, or
previous driving experience with the test vehicle model. This design
element may not have been apparent in the 60-day notice. NHTSA believes
this participant sampling strategy will provide insights to both novice
and experienced drivers of vehicles equipped with SAE L2 capabilities,
as well as DMS. In addition, while the 60-day notice described as a 55-
minute drive for the on-road experiment, this detail is preliminary and
NHTSA notes that the duration of the drive will be further considered
during upcoming detailed study planning and consider both study
objectives, procedural feasibility, and study budget. Moreover, NHTSA
will further emphasize focus group probing questions to seek insights
and data from drivers who are more experienced with SAE L2 system
interactions and with DMS.
Alliance for Automotive Innovation voiced concern that ``surveying
consumers about their normal driving behavior (i.e. when not supported
by a L2 system) may not provide an accurate baseline for comparing
their driving behavior when the L2 system is active.''
NHTSA appreciates this comment and concurs. NHTSA will ensure
findings from the survey are appropriately qualified. In addition,
NHTSA will further emphasize focus group probing questions to seek
insights and data from drivers more experienced with L2 system
interactions and with DMS.

[[Page 18527]]

Alliance for Automotive Innovation voiced concern that ``it may not
be possible to discern whether the observed results are attributable to
DMS or whether they are influenced by other participant-specific
attributes or vehicle and environmental factors.''
NHTSA appreciates this comment and will ensure that relevant DMS
features, other participant-specific attributes, and other vehicle and
environmental factors will be documented and--as appropriate--included
in the analyses performed as part of this research.
Alliance for Automotive Innovation stated that ``follow on
research, with more extensive on-road evaluations, will likely be
needed to develop a comprehensive understanding of long-term driver
behaviors.''
NHTSA concurs and clarifies that the study is not intended to
provide a comprehensive understanding of long-term driver behaviors
with DMS. NHTSA believes the study will provide valuable insight to
novice DMS and L2 system users' initial experiences with such systems.
Moreover, NHTSA will further emphasize focus group probing questions to
seek insights and data from drivers more experienced with L2 system
interactions and with DMS.
Alliance for Automotive Innovation voiced concern that ``while DMS
may share some attributes across vehicle manufacturers, systems may
vary based on the design characteristics and operational capabilities
of the L2 systems they are designed to support. [. . .] In other words,
it may not be possible to directly compare DMS systems in all cases.''
NHTSA appreciates this comment and concurs. Direct comparison of
DMS without regard to the L2 systems they may support will not be
expressed as a result of this study. NHTSA will take steps to ensure
reported findings are couched in the context of differing L2 system
designs and capabilities.
Alliance for Automotive Innovation voiced concern that the posted
research plan offers ``no indication about the extent to which the
agency plans to control for differences in the environmental conditions
that drivers experience under real-world conditions, including
nighttime evaluations.'' The Alliance requested that NHTSA consider
these factors when conducting its research.
NHTSA clarifies that the study does not intend to control for all
differences in the environmental conditions that drivers experience
under real-world conditions, such as nighttime evaluations. Relevant
environmental conditions that drivers experience in the study (e.g.,
traffic levels) will be noted during data collection, and the absence
of exhaustive environmental conditions tested will be listed in a
section of the report describing limitations. Furthermore, data
collection will not be conducted in conditions of greater than minimal
precipitation of any form to ensure that L2 operation is equally
available to all participants throughout the planned drive and that
road conditions do not affect participants' willingness to engage L2.
NHTSA believes the study will provide valuable insight to drivers' DMS
and L2 system interactions under nominal conditions.
Alliance for Automotive Innovation expressed that the agency should
also specify the extent to which the aforementioned detection methods
will factor into its final vehicle make and model selection.
The detection methods and mechanisms mentioned in the comment
(i.e., camera-based, steering wheel sensor-based, or hybrid systems,
and underlying capabilities and technologies) will be important
considerations for this study. Descriptions of these systems for the
vehicles included in the study will be documented during the conduct of
the research project, and described in the final report.
After thoughtful consideration of the above comments and the
submission from Alliance for Automotive Innovation on the whole, NHTSA
will further emphasize the focus group probing questions, and clarifies
the recruitment of novice and experienced participants in the on-road
portion of the study, to seek insights and data from drivers more
experienced with L2 system interactions and with DMS, and will take
steps to ensure reported findings are couched in the context of
differing L2 system designs and capabilities. These modifications yield
no changes in the participant burden estimate from that which was
published in the 60-day notice.
Affected Public: For the focus group portion of the study, the
potential respondent universe is comprised of all residents of the
United States who are between the ages of 18 and 64 and for the on-road
driving portion of the study, the potential respondent universe is
comprised of study volunteers in the greater Phoenix, Arizona area who
are between the ages of 18 and 64.
Estimated Number of Respondents: For the focus group portion of the
study, the study anticipates screening 500 potential participants to
obtain the target sample of 144 research participants who meet study
inclusion criteria and fully participate in the study. While the goal
is 144 final participants, the research team will ensure eligibility
and interest of 192 participants to account for potential attrition.
However, while NHTSA estimates 500 potential research participants
screened and up to 192 in the research study, NHTSA's burden estimates
are based on the average number of respondents to each information
collection in each year of the three-year project. Accordingly, NHTSA
has estimated that, on average, there are 167 respondents to the
eligibility questionnaire (500 potential participants / 3 years) and 64
respondents to each of the other information collections (192 research
participants / 3 years) annually. As such, we anticipate conducting a
maximum of 500 individual eligibility interviews to recruit the
necessary participants for the information collection.
For the on-road driving portion of the study, the study anticipates
screening 500 potential participants to obtain the target sample of 120
research participants who meet study inclusion criteria and fully
participate in the study. While the goal is 120 final participants, the
research team will ensure eligibility and interest of 160 participants
to account for potential attrition. However, while NHTSA estimates 500
potential research participants screened and up to 160 in the research
study, NHTSA's burden estimates are based on the average number of
respondents to each information collection in each year of the three-
year project. Accordingly, NHTSA has estimated that, on average, there
are 167 respondents to the eligibility questionnaire (500 potential
participants / 3 years) and 53 respondents to each of the other
information collections (160 research participants / 3 years) annually.
Frequency: This study is a one-time information collection.
Estimated Number of Responses: This is a one-time data collection
with 117 complete responses planned (i.e., one response per respondent;
64 responses to the focus group activity, 53 responses to the on-road
driving activity).
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: The estimated annual burden is
318 hours (155 hours for focus groups and 163 for the on-road portion).
The estimated total burden is 946 hours (461 total hours for focus
groups and 485 total hours for on-road portion). As stated above, the
research team will ensure eligibility and interest of 192 participants
for the focus groups portion of the study and 160 participants for the
on-road portion of the study. This estimate includes 125 hours for 500

[[Page 18528]]

potential participants to complete the initial screening for the focus
groups and the on-road driving portions of the study. The burden
estimate for the focus groups portion of the study includes 32 hours
for the consented participants and 304 hours for the enrolled
participants to complete all focus group study tasks. The burden
estimate for the on-road portion of the study includes 32 hours for the
160 consented participants and 328 hours for the enrolled participants
to complete all study tasks above and beyond the driving they would
normally complete during the naturalistic driving observation periods.
The on-road driving study tasks include a 12-minute introduction
procedure, a 10-minute questionnaire that assesses the participants'
risky driving behavior in the past 12 months, a 3-minute assessment of
the participants' grip strength, a 15-minute eye tracker setup and
calibration, a 10-minute vehicle familiarization and training briefing,
one 55-minute planned drive, an 8-minute questionnaire addressing
trust, an 8-minute acceptance questionnaire, a 10-minute system
understanding questionnaire, and a 4-minute final debriefing. The total
burden is the sum of both the focus groups and the on-road driving
activities and includes screening, consenting, and completing all of
the focus groups and on-road driving activities for a total estimate of
946 hours.
To calculate the opportunity cost to participants in this study,
NHTSA used the average (mean) hourly earnings from employers in all
industry sectors in the State of Arizona, which the Bureau of Labor
Statistics lists at $31.61 per hour.\3\ NHTSA estimates that the total
annual opportunity cost is approximately $10,779.01 ($4,899.55 for the
focus groups portion of the study, and $5,879.46 for the on-road
driving portion of the study). The details are presented in Tables 1
through 4 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor and Statistics, May
2024 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates Arizona:
<a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm#00-0000">https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm#00-0000</a>.

Table 1--Total Study Burden Hours--Focus Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time per Total
Form No. Information collection Number of response Frequency burden
respondents (minutes) of response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1830................................ Eligibility 500 15 1 125
Questionnaire.
1831................................ Informed Consent...... 192 10 1 32
1832................................ Focus Group Study..... 192 85 1 272
2190................................ Debriefing............ 192 10 1 32
---------------------------------------------------
Total........................... ...................... ........... ........... ........... 461
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2--Annual Burden Estimates--Focus Groups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time per Opportunity Annual
Form No. Information collection Number of response cost per Frequency Annual burden hours opportunity
respondents (minutes) response of response costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1830................................ Eligibility 167 15 $7.90 1 41.75 hours; 42 hours. $1,327.62
Questionnaire.
1831................................ Informed Consent...... 64 10 5.27 1 10.67 hours; 11 hours. 347.71
1832................................ Focus Group Study..... 64 85 44.78 1 90.67 hours; 91 hours. 2,876.51
2190................................ Debriefing............ 64 10 5.27 1 10.67 hour; 11 hours.. 347.71
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Estimates................ ...................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 155 hours............. 4,889.55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3--Total Study Burden Hours--On-Road Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time per Total
Form No. Information collection Number of response Frequency burden
respondents (minutes) of response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1833................................ Eligibility 500 15 1 125
Questionnaire.
1834................................ Informed Consent...... 160 12 1 32
1835................................ Perception of Risk/ 160 10 1 26.67
Frequency of Risky
Behavior
Questionnaire.
1836................................ Grip Strength 160 3 1 8
Measurement.
N/A................................. Study Drive (Eye 160 80 1 213.33
Tracker Setup &
Calibration, Vehicle
Familiarization/
Training, Study
Drive).
1837................................ Trust in Automated 160 8 1 21.33
Systems Scale.
1838................................ Onboard Monitoring 160 8 1 21.33
System Acceptance
Survey.
1839................................ System Understanding 160 10 1 26.67
Questionnaire.
2190................................ Debriefing............ 160 4 1 10.67
---------------------------------------------------
Total........................... ...................... ........... ........... ........... 485
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4--Annual Burden Estimates--On-Road Driving
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time per Opportunity Annual
Form No. Information collection Number of response cost per Frequency Annual burden hours opportunity
respondents (minutes) response of response costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1833................................ Eligibility 167 15 $7.90 1 41.75 hours; 42 hours. $1,327.62
Questionnaire.
1834................................ Informed Consent...... 53 12 6.32 1 10.60 hours; 11 hours. 347.71
1835................................ Perception of Risk/ 53 10 5.27 1 8.83 hours; 9 hours... 284.49
Frequency of Risky
Behavior
Questionnaire.

[[Page 18529]]

1836................................ Grip Strength 53 3 1.58 1 2.65 hours; 3 hours... 94.83
Measurement.
2189................................ Study Drive (Eye 53 80 55.84 1 70.6 hours; 71 hours.. 2,971.34
Tracker Setup &
Calibration,Vehicle
Familiarization/
Training, Study Drive.
1837................................ Trust in Automated 53 8 4.21 1 7.06 hours; 7 hours... 221.27
Systems Scale.
1838................................ Onboard Monitoring 53 8 4.21 1 7.06 hours; 7 hours... 221.27
System Acceptance
Survey.
1839................................ System Understanding 53 10 5.27 1 8.83 hours; 9 hours... 284.49
Questionnaire.
2190................................ Debriefing............ 53 4 2.11 1 3.53 hours; 4 hours... 126.44
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Estimates................ ...................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 163 hours............. 5,879.46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $0
Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29A.

Cem Hatipoglu,
Associate Administrator, Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2026-07017 Filed 4-9-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

</pre></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on April 10, 2026.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.