Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for Comment; Drive-Mode Design Best Practices

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

June 8, 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 is a new collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval for a one-time voluntary experiment which will examine how different drive-mode implementations affect driver attention and performance compared to standard interfaces. A Federal Register Notice with a 60- day comment period soliciting comments on the following information collection was published on February 11, 2026. NHTSA received two comments.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 109 (Monday, June 8, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34718-34721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-11456]

[[Page 34718]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0128]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for
Comment; Drive-Mode Design Best Practices

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 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 is a new
collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval
for a one-time voluntary experiment which will examine how different
drive-mode implementations affect driver attention and performance
compared to standard interfaces. A Federal Register Notice with a 60-
day comment period soliciting comments on the following information
collection was published on February 11, 2026. NHTSA received two
comments.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 8, 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 Starla Weaver, Office of Vehicle Crash
Avoidance and Electronic Controls Research, Human Factors Division
(NSR-310), W46-424, 202-366-7409, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 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: Drive-Mode Design Best Practices.
OMB Control Number: New.
Form Number: NHTSA Form 2112, 2113, 2114, and 2115.
Type of Request: Approval of a new information collection request.
Type of Review Requested: Regular.
Length of Approval Requested: Three years from date of approval.
Summary of the Collection of Information: The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the U.S. Department of
Transportation is seeking approval for a one-time voluntary information
collection from 96 licensed drivers of various ages for a research
study which will examine how drive-mode implementations (i.e., the
simplified user interfaces for mobile phone applications designed to
make operating the phone more safe when driving) affect driver
attention and performance compared to standard interfaces. NHTSA
expects to provide screening questionnaires to 300 potential
participants in the greater Phoenix area to determine their eligibility
for this experiment. Recruiting participants for this study has an
estimated burden of approximately 75 hours for the screening questions.
The data collection will include a test track component and a cones
course component, in which 36 participants are estimated to be eligible
and interested in each. (While the goal is 36 final participants per
experiment, the research team will ensure eligibility and interest of
up to 96 participants total to account for potential attrition and
replacement). The test track experiment has a total expected burden of
128 hours, and the cones course experiment has a total expected burden
of 104 hours. In the test track experiment, participants will perform
tasks on a mobile phone in a stationary vehicle, while wearing
occlusion glasses, and then perform tasks while driving around a test
track. In the cones course experiment, participants will perform tasks
while driving through a cones course. Across both experiments, data
will be collected by the experimenter who will provide instructions to
the participant and will observe participant performance; using GoPro
cameras that will monitor the participant and the driving environment;
and using the Ergoneers Dikablis Glasses X eye-tracking system, which
will record gaze position, pupil diameter, and blink behavior. The
total expected burden for this collection is 331 hours. NHTSA will use
this information to produce a technical report that will provide
summary figures and tables, as well as the results of statistical
analysis of the information. No identifying information or individual
responses will be reported. The technical report will be shared with
NHTSA and the Department of Transportation. Members of the general
public would have access to the aggregated information when written
reports are published. This project involves approval by an
institutional review board, which the contractor will obtain before
contacting potential participants. This collection will be used to
generate evidence-based best practices for the design of future drive-
mode applications and functionalities for mobile phones operating
independently of in-vehicle systems.
Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: Driver distraction remains a significant safety threat,
claiming thousands of lives annually, according to the latest data from
NHTSA.\1\ NHTSA has implemented a multi-faceted approach to combat this
issue, including public awareness campaigns like ``Put the Phone Away
or Pay,'' increased law enforcement visibility \2\, and the development
of Driver Distraction Guidelines for in-vehicle electronic device
design.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2024).
Distracted driving in 2022 (Report No. DOT HS 813 559). National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
\2\ Chaudhary, N.K., Connolly, J., Tison, J., Solomon, M., &
Elliott, K. (2015). Evaluation of the NHTSA distracted driving high-
visibility enforcement demonstration projects in California and
Delaware. (Report No. DOT HS 812 108). National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
\3\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2013).
Visual-manual NHTSA driver distraction guidelines for in-vehicle
electronic devices (Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 81). Washington,
DC.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2014). Visual-
manual NHTSA driver distraction guidelines for in-vehicle electronic
devices (Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 179). Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A key focus of the NHTSA Distraction Guidelines has been addressing
visual-manual distractions, which are a major safety concern with in-
vehicle systems.\4\

[[Page 34719]]

The Guidelines established test protocols and acceptance criteria for
measuring this type of distraction.\5\ In 2016, NHTSA proposed
expanding these Guidelines to include portable and aftermarket
devices.\6\ This proposal advocated for pairing smartphones with
vehicle systems, contributing to the widespread adoption of platforms
like Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. NHTSA also promoted ``drive-mode''
for unpaired mobile phones, defining it as a simplified user interface
designed for safe driving.\7\ To further refine its research agenda,
NHTSA convened a Distraction Action Forum in August 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Fitch, G.A., Soccolich, S.A., Guo, F., McClafferty, J.,
Fang, Y., Olson, R.L., Perez, M.A., Hanowski, R.J., Hankey, J.M., &
Dingus, T.A. (2013). The impact of hand-held and hands-free cell
phone use on driving performance and safety-critical event risk.
(Report No. DOT HS 811 757). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
Klauer, S.G., Dingus, T.A., Neale, V.L., Sudweeks, J.D., &
Ramsey, D.J. (2006). The impact of driver inattention on near-crash/
crash risk: An analysis using the 100-car naturalistic driving study
data. (Report No. DOT HS 810 594). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
\5\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2013).
Visual-manual NHTSA driver distraction guidelines for in-vehicle
electronic devices (Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 81). Washington,
DC.
\6\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2016).
Visual-manual NHTSA driver distraction guidelines for portable and
aftermarket devices--Notice for Comment (Federal Register Vo. 81,
No. 233). Washington, DC.
\7\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2016).
Visual-manual NHTSA driver distraction guidelines for portable and
aftermarket devices--Notice for Comment (Federal Register Vo. 81,
No. 233). Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drive-mode limits phone functionality and simplifies the human-
machine interface (HMI).
This collection will provide answers to NHTSA's objectives for this
task order, which include determining how the interface of cell phones
and electronic devices differ when operating in drive-mode relative to
their standard operations, determining what changes in functionality
occur when drive-mode is enabled, determining how much variability
exists across different drive-mode implementations, determining how
well drive-mode interfaces and functionality comply with the
recommendations in the NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines, and
identifying what factors influence user acceptance and use of drive-
mode. This collection will be used to investigate how drive-mode
implementations impact driver attention and performance as compared to
their standard interfaces. NHTSA will use the information gathered to
produce a technical report that presents the results of the study. The
technical report will provide summary statistics and tables, as well as
the results of data analysis of the information, but it will not
include any personally identifiable information. The technical report
will be published to the National Transportation Library and available
to the general public. The report may also be of interest to a variety
of stakeholders, including automotive manufacturers, suppliers,
researchers, safety advocates, and regulators. The study results will
provide NHTSA with valuable information to support initiatives to
generate evidence-based best practices for the design of future drive-
mode applications and functionalities for mobile phones operating
independently of in-vehicle systems. The results support the agency's
mission to reduce the number of deaths, injuries, and economic losses
resulting from motor vehicle crashes related to driver distraction on
U.S. roads.
60-Day Notice: A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting public comments on the information collection was
published on 02/11/2026 (91 FR 6284). Two comments were received during
the comment period, one from Consumer Reports and one from The Alliance
for Automative Innovation. NHTSA appreciates the input from these
organizations and their support for the research.
Consumer Reports asked the agency to specify whether the current
research will be able to identify which drive-mode elements trigger
drivers to circumvent drive-mode and which result in task deferral.
While determining the factors that lead drivers to circumvent drive-
mode is not the primary purpose of this study, participants will
perform tasks in various apps both with and without drive-mode while
driving on the test track and then be asked about the likelihood that
they would perform that task when driving in the real world. This
subjective data would not be sufficient to provide a full understanding
of the specific drive-mode elements that lead drivers to abandon drive
mode or delay task engagement. However, a comparison of the responses
to this question for drive-mode and standard versions of the app could
help assess which version (standard or drive-mode) participants feel
they would be more likely to use while driving. Additionally, this
data, when combined with the information in the practice review
conducted as background for this data collection effort, could begin to
uncover common factors or elements of apps that participants report
they are or are not likely to use while driving. However, it must be
noted that the practice review indicates that there is limited element
variability across drive-mode apps, and this lack of variability may
limit the ability of the data to uncover the impact of individual
elements that influence app use.
Consumer reports also noted the value of determining which drive-
mode implementations affect long off-road glances. NHTSA agrees and has
included eye tracking within this study to assess drive-mode
implementations and characteristics that lead to long off-road glances.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation requested more information
about the drive-mode applications being evaluated. They inquired about
the driver performance metrics that will be used in the study and
suggested lateral position and car following headway as potential
metrics. They requested additional information on the planned driving
conditions, noting that the complexity of the driving environment may
influence driver performance. Clarification was requested on the
purpose of the test track evaluation using occlusion goggles and the
importance of eye tracking and baseline data were espoused. It was
suggested that a post-study drive questionnaire could be used to
identify the factors that in[fllig]uence user acceptance and use of
drive-mode applications and to understand whether the driver's
responses during testing are representative of their real-world driving
behavior. Use of a priori power analyses to select sample sizes for the
study was also suggested along with use of appropriate correction
methods to account for tests with multiple comparisons. More
information was also requested regarding the cone course scenario.
In response to these comments, NHTSA explains that many of the
specifics about test conditions and test approach will be determined in
the test planning phase of this effort. The information collection
approval request process typically must be initiated well prior to the
start of detailed study planning. The details of testing approach(es)
will also be determined during detailed test plan development. Existing
implementations of drive-mode will be reviewed and considered during
detailed test plan development and specific implementations will be
determined at that time. However, some responses based on current
information are provided below.
The study will evaluate both standard and drive-mode applications
on both Apple and android devices. Applications will be selected based
on the types of activities that drivers most frequently engage in
(e.g., navigation, listening to music/audio books etc.). To ensure the
study is considering all applications available at the time of testing,
application selection will be finalized just prior to data collection.

[[Page 34720]]

NHTSA acknowledges the importance of having baseline data and the
value of collecting driving performance metrics and eye tracking data.
Within the current study, participants will engage in both standard and
drive-mode app task performance first in a static vehicle to establish
baseline task performance and response time. This baseline will be
compared to task performance when vision is occluded (using the
occlusion goggles) and when driving on the test track were driving
performance metrics, such as lane position and speed will be measured.
Driver eye glance behavior will be recorded using an eye tracking
system during the test track drive to record visual attention metrics
such as mean glance duration and total eyes-off-road time. The proposed
sample sizes were selected based on a priori power analyses, which
account for the use of within-subject comparisons within the study. As
suggested, appropriate correction methods will be employed to account
for tests with multiple comparisons. While initial study ideas
encompassed static, test track, and cone course data collections, the
full details of the test approach will be determined during detailed
test planning.
NHTSA agrees that there is value in understanding user acceptance
and use of drive-mode. As part of the study, experimenters will be
seeking subjective feedback from participants about each task
immediately after completing that task on the test track, including
information on perceived task demand, task acceptance, and how likely
the driver would be to engage in this task while driving in the real
world.
Affected Public: Study volunteers in the Phoenix, Arizona area
between the ages of 18 and 60. Of the selected participants, equal
numbers of males and females will be recruited.
Estimated Number of Respondents: The study anticipates screening
300 potential participants to obtain 96 individuals who meet the
inclusion criteria. It is estimated that approximately 35% of those who
begin the screening questionnaire will be eligible and will agree to
participate in the study. While the goal is 36 final participants per
experiment, (72 participants total) the research team will ensure
eligibility and interest of up to 96 participants total to account for
potential attrition and data loss.
Frequency: This is a one-time information collection, and there
will be no recurrence.
Estimated Number of Responses: 492
Each respondent participant responds to each form once.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 111
The annual estimated burned is 111 hours. This estimate includes 25
hours for 100 potential participants to complete the initial screening.
The annual burden estimate also includes 8 hours for 32 participants to
review the consent form. An additional 43 hours are estimated for the
16 annual participants in the test track experiment and 35 hours for
the 16 annual participants in the cones course experiment. The total
burden is the sum of the burden across screening, consenting, and
completing the test track or cones course drive. The details are
presented in Table 1 and Table 2 below:

Table 1--Total Study Burden Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time per Total
Form No. Information collection Number of response Frequency of Total burden opportunity
respondents (minutes) response hours costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA 2112................................ Screening Questionnaire..... 300 15 1 75 $3,082
NHTSA 2113 & 2115......................... Informed Consent............ 96 15 1 24 986
NHTSA 2114................................ Study Drive (Test Track).... 48 160 1 128 5260
NHTSA 2114................................ Study Drive (Cones Course).. 48 130 1 104 4273
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... ............................ .............. .............. .............. 331 13,901
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2--Annual Burden Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time per Opportunity Total
Form No. Information Number of response cost per Frequency of Total burden opportunity
collection respondents (minutes) response response hours costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA 2112........................ Screening 100 15 $10.27 1 25 $1,027
Questionnaire.
NHTSA 2113 & 2115................. Informed Consent.... 32 15 10.27 1 8 329
NHTSA 2114........................ Study Drive (Test 16 160 109.57 1 43 1,753
Track).
NHTSA 2114........................ Study Drive (Cones 16 130 89.03 1 35 1,424
Course).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Estimates.............. .................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 111 4,533
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: Participation in this study is
voluntary, and there are no costs to respondents beyond the time spent
completing the questionnaires and visits to the study facility.
Further, there is no preparation of data required or expected of
respondents, thus there are no record keeping costs to the respondents.
Participants do not incur capital and start-up costs, nor do they incur
fuel costs as the vehicles being driven are not the participants'
vehicles. Individuals will complete one study drive, either the test
track drive or the cones course drive. For individuals who participate
in the test track study, they will be offered $375 as compensation for
their participation. For individuals who participate in the cones
course study, participants will be offered $300 as compensation for
completing the study requirements. Our experience indicates that
anything less than the rate of $150

[[Page 34721]]

per hour for total compensation would likely result in failure to
recruit enough participants to provide adequate statistical power. This
level of compensation is in line with past, similar efforts given the
activities it requires of participants.
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. 2026-11456 Filed 6-5-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

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

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on June 8, 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.