Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for Comment; Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) User Acceptance and Effectiveness Testing Using Simulator and/or Closed Track Methods

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

October 15, 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 document describes a collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval to evaluate driver's acceptance and use of intelligent speed assistance systems. A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following information collection was published on June 25, 2026. Five comments were received during the comment period. NHTSA has addressed these comments, and there are no resulting changes to this collection based on the comments. However, due to rounding adjustments, the total estimated burden hours were reduced from 311 to 308 hours.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 198 (Thursday, October 15, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 198 (Thursday, October 15, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65614-65619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-21054]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0787]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for
Comment; Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) User Acceptance and
Effectiveness Testing Using Simulator and/or Closed Track Methods

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. This document
describes a collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek
OMB approval to evaluate driver's acceptance and use of intelligent
speed assistance systems. A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following information
collection was published on June 25, 2026. Five comments were received
during the comment period. NHTSA has addressed these comments, and
there are no resulting changes to this collection based on the
comments. However, due to rounding adjustments, the total estimated
burden hours were reduced from 311 to 308 hours.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 16, 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 Emily Shull, Office of Vehicle Safety
Research, Intelligent Technologies Research Division NSR-320, West
Building, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200

[[Page 65615]]

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f99c94909580d78a918c9595b99d968dd79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93f6fefaffeabde0fbe6ffffd3f7fce7bdf4fce5">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>, 202-
366-7409. Please identify the 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 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: Intelligent Speed Assistance User Acceptance and
Effectiveness Testing using Simulator and/or Closed Track Methods.
OMB Control Number: New.
Form Number(s): There are multiple forms for this new information
collection including

<bullet> NHTSA Form 2179: Eligibility Questionnaire
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2180: Informed Consent Document 1
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2181: Informed Consent Document 2
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2267: Intake & Eligibility Confirmation
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2182: Wellness Questionnaire
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2183: Questionnaire 1
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2184: Driving Behavior Assessment [Study 1] and
Questionnaire 2
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2185: Questionnaire 3
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2186: Driving Behavior Assessment [Study 2 and 3]
and Questionnaire 4

Type of Request: New.
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) will collect information from the
public as part of a multi-year research effort to learn about drivers'
acceptance and effectiveness of ISA technology.
The overall objective of this research is to advance the state of
knowledge regarding the interplay between driver acceptance and
effectiveness of different ISA systems and is not immediately intended
to inform regulations or policy. All study procedures are approved by
the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board. The research will be
conducted in three parts, referred to as Study 1, Study 2, and Study 3.
For Study 1, participants will complete an intake and eligibility
procedure, a training presentation, a familiarization drive, wellness
questionnaires to assess susceptibility to simulator sickness, five
study drives accompanied by a questionnaire after each drive to assess
their acceptance and attitudes of ISA, and a questionnaire at the end
of the study to measure their driving and speed behaviors.
For Study 2 and Study 3, participants will complete an intake and
eligibility procedure, a training presentation, a pre-drive
questionnaire to assess their acceptance and attitudes of ISA, a
familiarization drive, wellness questionnaires to assess susceptibility
to simulator sickness, two study drives, and a post-drive questionnaire
to assess their acceptance and attitudes of ISA and their driving and
speed behaviors. The NADS-1 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).
Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and
reduce the economic costs of road traffic crashes through education,
research, safety standards, and enforcement activity. As vehicle
technologies advance, they have the potential to dramatically reduce
the loss of life each day in roadway crashes. Alternatively, the system
may not reach this potential if drivers do not accept and do not use
the systems. This new information collection supports the department's
strategic goal of safety. Speeding contributes to a significant number
of fatal motor vehicle crashes each year. ISA technology has the
potential to mitigate and prevent speeding-related crashes by alerting
the driver of their speed. To evaluate the effectiveness of ISA
systems, research is needed to understand to what extent ISA system
characteristics influence drivers' speeding behavior, attitudes, and
perceptions of the technology.
The following components will be used to obtain the necessary
information to achieve this purpose.
(1) Eligibility Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 2179): This questionnaire
is necessary for determining respondent suitability for the study based
on driving experience and history, ability to adhere to study
requirements, general health, sleeping behavior, and ability to safely
drive the NADS-1 without concerns.
(2) Informed Consent Document 1 (NHTSA Form 2180): This form is
necessary for obtaining documented informed consent from the
participant to participate in Study 1. The form describes all study
procedures, data storage and use, and potential risks from the study.
(3) Informed Consent Document 2 (NHTSA Form 2181): This form is
necessary for obtaining documented informed consent from the
participant to participate in Study 2 or 3. The form describes all
study procedures, data storage and use, and potential risks from the
study.
(4) Intake & Eligibility Confirmation (NHTSA Form 2267): This
process includes completion of the research participant substitute W-9
for payment, review of the driver's license to confirm it is valid by
checking the expiration date and confirming age (for eligibility) and
sex (for balancing sample) as listed on the license. These procedures
are necessary to pay the participant and ensure they meet eligibility
requirements before continuing with the experiment.
(5) Wellness Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 2182): This form is
necessary to measure signs and symptoms of simulator sickness. If
sickness scores increase during the drive, participants will be asked
to take a break or end the experiment.
(6) Questionnaire 1 (NHTSA Form 2183): This form is necessary for
Study 1 to assess participants' acceptance and attitudes of ISA.
Collecting these data after each of the five study drives in Study 1
will let us measure how exposure to ISA impacts acceptance and
attitudes of ISA. It will be administered during the driving behavior
assessment.
(7) Driving Behavior Assessment for Study 1 and Questionnaire 2
(NHTSA Form 2184): This procedure for Study 1 is necessary to measure
the impact of ISA system characteristics on speeding behavior and
acceptance of ISA. The participant will drive for 80 minutes in the
driving simulator, ample time to briefly experience different ISA
systems and form an opinion of different system characteristics.
Questionnaire 2 is necessary for Study 1 to measure participants' self-
reported driving and speeding behaviors. These data will be used as
covariates in the statistical analyses. It will be administered after
the driving behavior assessment.
(8) Questionnaire 3 (NHTSA Form 2185): This form is necessary for
Study 2 and 3 to assess participants' acceptance and attitudes of ISA.
It will be administered before the driving behavior assessment.
(9) Driving Behavior Assessment for Study 2 and 3 and Questionnaire
4 (NHTSA Form 2186): This procedure is necessary for Study 2 and 3 to
measure

[[Page 65616]]

the impact of ISA system characteristics on speeding behavior and
acceptance of ISA. The participant will drive for 110 minutes in the
driving simulator, ample time for prolonged exposure to two different
ISA systems. Questionnaire 4 is necessary for Study 2 and 3 to assess
participants' acceptance and attitudes of ISA and their driving and
speeding behaviors. It will be administered after the driving behavior
assessment.
(10) Driving Behavior Assessment for Study 1: This procedure for
Study 1 is necessary to measure the impact of ISA system
characteristics on speeding behavior and acceptance of ISA. The
participant will drive for 80 minutes in the driving simulator, ample
time to briefly experience different ISA systems and form an opinion of
different system characteristics.
(11) Driving Behavior Assessment for Study 2 and 3: This procedure
is necessary for Study 2 and 3 to measure the impact of ISA system
characteristics on speeding behavior and acceptance of ISA. The
participant will drive for 110 minutes in the driving simulator, ample
time for prolonged exposure to two different ISA systems.
60-Day Notice: A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting public comments on the following information
collection was published on June 25, 2026 (91 FR 38469). Five comments
were received in response to that notice.
One of the comments was outside the scope of the Paperwork
Reduction Act and this collection of information. Therefore, the
comment will not be expanded on.
The second comment was submitted by the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB). NTSB expressed concern that a simulator-based
study ``will not address the real-world environment that may affect ISA
user acceptance,'' noting that although assessing ISA user acceptance
and effectiveness is important and much research has already been
conducted in this area, real-world environmental and social factors are
not captured in a simulator setting.
NHTSA appreciates this comment and agrees that a simulator-based
study, by design, cannot fully capture the real-world environmental and
social factors that influence sustained driver acceptance. This
limitation will be documented in the resulting technical report.
NTSB further noted that NHTSA's own 2024 Traffic Safety Facts
report on speeding found that ``young male drivers were the most likely
to be speeding at the time of fatal crashes,'' and expressed concern
that the study's Eastern Iowa volunteer pool may over-select younger
drivers who could be the least accepting of technologies that limit
their speed, reducing the applicability of the study's findings.
NHTSA appreciates NTSB's continued engagement in ISA research and
its long-standing safety recommendations in this area. NHTSA agrees
that a volunteer sample recruited from a single geographic area cannot,
on its own, represent the full range of ages, driving experience, and
speeding propensity found in the general driving population. NHTSA will
document the demographic composition of the enrolled sample in the
resulting technical report so that readers can appropriately weigh the
generalizability of the findings, and efforts will be made to recruit a
broad range of ages and driving experience within the constraints of
the study's geographic recruitment area.
Finally, NTSB encouraged NHTSA to assess the limitations of the
proposed study to ensure that NHTSA continues moving expeditiously
toward requiring as standard equipment in all new vehicles ISA systems
that, at a minimum, warn the driver when the vehicle exceeds the speed
limit.
NHTSA appreciates NTSB's recommendations over the years. As stated
previously, NHTSA will assess the limitations of the study and reduce
them where possible. NHTSA notes, however, that this research is
intended to advance the state of knowledge regarding driver acceptance
and effectiveness of ISA system characteristics and is not immediately
intended to inform rulemaking.
The third comment was submitted by the Alliance for Automotive
Innovation (Auto Innovators).
Auto Innovators encouraged NHTSA ``to distinguish clearly among
different ISA system designs and feedback modalities, including
warning-based, haptic, and speed-control approaches,'' noting that
driver acceptance may vary significantly depending on how a system
communicates with or assists the driver.
NHTSA appreciates this comment and concurs. The driving behavior
assessment in Study 1 exposes participants to multiple ISA systems
within a single session, and Studies 2 and 3 provide prolonged exposure
to two ISA systems per participant. Participants in Study 1 also rank
their preference across the visual, auditory, haptic, and speed-
limiting ISA variants they experience. The specific systems and
feedback modalities evaluated will be described in the resulting
technical report. These systems reflect a mix of designs and feedback
modalities--warning-based, haptic, and speed-control approaches--
consistent with Auto Innovators' recommendation. NHTSA's research team
also intends to draw on accuracy metrics from the earlier ISA project
conducted with Exponent (``Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA)
Assessment of Enabling Technologies and Implementation Approaches'')
when designing the driving scenarios for this study.
Auto Innovators recommended that NHTSA evaluate ISA acceptance
using ``measures that go beyond general favorability or perceived
usefulness,'' including driver trust in the accuracy and reliability of
speed limit information, nuisance or annoyance associated with alerts,
understanding of system limitations, willingness to use the system over
time, and the likelihood that drivers could override, disable, or
otherwise adapt their behavior in response to the system.
NHTSA appreciates this recommendation and agrees that driver
acceptance is a multi-dimensional construct. The study's driver
acceptance and attitude questionnaires will assess several of these
dimensions: a nine-item semantic differential scale captures both
perceived usefulness and the nuisance or annoyance associated with each
ISA system, and separate items ask whether participants would use the
system regularly and whether they would frequently override it. NHTSA
acknowledges that the current instruments do not include an item that
isolates driver trust in the accuracy and reliability of speed-limit
information specifically, or driver understanding of situations in
which an ISA system may fail to perform as expected; these dimensions
are currently captured only indirectly, through more general items on
system dependability and familiarity. NHTSA will consider adding
targeted items addressing these two constructs as the study instruments
are finalized.
Auto Innovators also recommended that NHTSA evaluate ``drivers'
acceptance of the system's default settings, including whether those
settings influence drivers' willingness to use ISA over time or their
likelihood of overriding or disabling it.''
NHTSA appreciates this comment. The study's questionnaires will
include an item asking whether participants would find it acceptable
for the ISA system to be active by default at the start of every trip,
directly addressing this recommendation. The experimental design
supports the comparison of within-subject experiences with different
ISA systems. This foundational work will provide insights for potential

[[Page 65617]]

future longitudinal studies where willingness to use ISA can be
assessed over time.
In addition, Auto Innovators recommended that the research
``include realistic scenarios that reflect the complexity of speed
limit identification in real-world driving, including temporary speed
limits, work zones, school zones, variable speed limits, obscured or
missing signs, ramps, adjacent roads with different posted limits, and
situations where map-based and sign-based information may conflict.''
NHTSA appreciates this comment. All three studies ask participants
to rate expected ISA effectiveness separately by road type, including
school zones and construction zones. The questionnaire items align with
what they will experience in the driving simulator scenarios. The
acceptance and effectiveness of ISA systems will be assessed using
output from the questionnaire and driving simulator. NHTSA will
consider incorporating additional scenario elements identified by Auto
Innovators, such as temporary or variable speed limits and obscured
signage, into the simulator scenario design as the studies are
finalized.
Auto Innovators cautioned that ``simulator studies cannot fully
replicate the motivations, contextual cues, perceived risk, and
repeated-use dynamics that influence driver behavior outside the
research setting,'' and recommended that any simulator-based findings
``be treated as complementary to, rather than a substitute for, real-
world or naturalistic data on sustained driver acceptance, adaptation,
and ISA use.'' Auto Innovators further recommended that NHTSA study
additional factors affecting real-world ISA use, including false
positive and false negative alerts, alert timing and frequency, and the
potential for habituation or alert fatigue over time.
NHTSA appreciates this comment and agrees. The ISA systems used in
the simulator-based study drives are not modeled as 100% accurate;
participants will encounter instances of imperfect system performance
during the study drives, allowing NHTSA to collect acceptance and
effectiveness data under conditions that reflect the error-prone
performance of ISA systems currently deployed on public roads rather
than an idealized system. NHTSA agrees that simulator-based findings
should be treated as complementary to, rather than a substitute for,
real-world and naturalistic data, and will characterize this limitation
in the technical report.
Auto Innovators encouraged NHTSA ``to draw from Europe's experience
with ISA while recognizing important differences between the European
and U.S. regulatory and operating environments,'' noting that ISA has
been mandatory in the EU since 2022 for new vehicle types and since
July 2024 for all new vehicles, but that publicly available post-
mandate data on real-world user acceptance and disablement rates
remains limited.
NHTSA appreciates this comment and will consider available European
research and post-mandate data, where relevant, in the design and
interpretation of this study.
Finally, Auto Innovators encouraged NHTSA ``to continue exploring
speeding solutions that go beyond vehicle-based technology, consistent
with the Safe System approach.''
NHTSA appreciates this comment and notes that ISA is one of several
speeding countermeasures NHTSA is pursuing as part of a broader Safe
System approach to reducing speeding-related crashes.
The fourth comment was submitted anonymously. The commenter argued
that measuring driver acceptance in a simulator creates a ``false
acceptance'' bias because participants do not experience the real-world
social or physical consequences of maintaining a lower speed, such as
pressure from surrounding traffic to exceed the posted limit. The
commenter recommended that NHTSA inject operational stressors, such as
aggressive tailgating and tight merge maneuvers, into the simulator
scenarios to measure driver behavior under more realistic conditions.
NHTSA appreciates this comment and acknowledges that a simulator
environment cannot fully replicate the social and physical pressures of
real-world driving. This limitation will be documented in the resulting
technical report. NHTSA will consider the commenter's recommendation
regarding surrounding traffic behavior as the simulator scenarios are
finalized.
The anonymous commenter also argued that real-world ISA systems,
which rely on camera-based sign recognition and GPS map data, are
subject to error, citing June 2026 real-world testing published by
Thatcham Research finding that event-based accuracy at speed-limit
transitions can be substantially lower than overall distance-based
accuracy. Similar to the Auto Innovators, the commenter expressed
concern that a simulator study using error-free, pristine ISA
performance would measure driver acceptance of a theoretical, flawless
technology rather than the error-prone systems currently deployed on
public roads, and recommended that NHTSA adopt event-based rather than
distance-based accuracy metrics.
NHTSA appreciates this comment and agrees that ISA performance
should not be modeled as error-free. The ISA systems used in the
simulator-based study drives will not be modeled as 100% accurate;
participants will encounter instances of imperfect system performance
during the study drives, providing data on driver responses under
conditions that reflect the error-prone performance of ISA systems
currently deployed on public roads. NHTSA will consider the commenter's
recommendation regarding event-based accuracy metrics in the design of
the study's performance measures. NHTSA also notes that accuracy
metrics from the earlier ISA project conducted with Exponent,
referenced in an earlier response, may help inform this effort.
This anonymous commenter also raised concerns regarding the
susceptibility of camera-based sign-recognition systems to physical
adversarial attacks, such as altered or perturbed signage, and
recommended that NHTSA test ISA responses to degraded or adversarially
altered signs.
NHTSA appreciates this comment and agrees this is an important
consideration for the underlying technology. However, this driver
acceptance and effectiveness study is focused on driver response to ISA
system behavior rather than the robustness of any particular
manufacturer's computer-vision algorithm. Therefore, this study will
not include the evaluation of camera-based sign-recognition systems
exposed to adversarial attacks.
Finally, the anonymous commenter argued that recruiting
participants from the DSRI volunteer registry in Eastern Iowa risks
oversampling younger, more technology-familiar drivers, and noted that
the study as described does not evaluate the unique risks faced by
older drivers who are less familiar with driver-assistance technologies
or by drivers who use adaptive driving controls, such as hand-operated
accelerator and brake controls. The commenter recommended that NHTSA
broaden recruitment beyond the university-affiliated volunteer pool to
include dedicated cohorts of older and less technology-familiar
drivers, and evaluate compatibility with adaptive driving controls.
NHTSA appreciates this comment and acknowledges that a volunteer
sample recruited from a single geographic area will not fully represent
the national driving population. NHTSA will document the demographic
composition of the final sample, including age, in the resulting
technical report. Stratification

[[Page 65618]]

will be used to balance the sample by age. The database that will be
used to recruit participants for this study includes individuals across
the lifespan, most of whom are not enrolled as students.
NHTSA agrees that the needs of drivers who use adaptive driving
controls and other special populations are important considerations for
ISA research and will consider these populations in the design of
future studies; potential participants are screened for health factors
and simulator safety limitations, most of which are contraindications
for participating in the motion-based driving simulator used in these
studies.
The fifth comment was submitted by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS). IIHS expressed support for NHTSA's planned study
and recommended that the research include analysis of driver eye-glance
behavior, de-emphasize measures of ISA effectiveness on speeding, and
focus on addressing knowledge gaps about ISA acceptance.
IIHS also recommended that NHTSA include analysis of driver eye-
glance behavior, referencing their recent report detailing a simulator
study (Reagan et al., 2026). Reagan and colleagues (2026) found that
ISA warnings were associated with more frequent but shorter glances to
the instrument cluster compared with similar instances of speeding
without ISA, a pattern that held for both visual-only and visual-plus-
audible warnings. IIHS noted that drivers' visual reaction to
cautionary displays like ISA is understudied.
NHTSA appreciates this comment and has reviewed the accompanying
report. The simulator that will be used for this data collection can
record driver eye-glance behavior. NHTSA will consider incorporating
eye-glance metrics into the driving behavior assessments as the study
protocol is finalized.
IIHS noted that though its own study found decreases in speeding
behavior associated with ISA, it placed little value on these findings
because simulators poorly replicate the motivational factors that
compel drivers to speed in the real world, which severely limits the
external validity of speeding outcomes. IIHS encouraged NHTSA to adopt
a similar perspective and to rely on field data to the extent the
relationship between advisory ISA and speeding behavior is of equal or
greater importance than the relationship between advisory ISA and
acceptance.
NHTSA appreciates this comment and agrees that simulator-based
speeding outcomes should be interpreted with caution given the limits
on external validity that IIHS describes. The IIHS report indicates
that speeding metrics were reduced in each ISA condition compared with
not driving with ISA. This suggests that although performed in a
simulator, the within-subject comparisons provide support for the
effectiveness of ISA systems. Consistent with NHTSA's responses to
other comments in this notice, NHTSA will characterize simulator-based
findings, including any observed changes in speeding behavior, as
complementary to rather than a substitute for real-world and
naturalistic data, and will prioritize the study's driver acceptance
measures accordingly.
IIHS reported that in a representative survey of U.S. drivers, only
about a third agreed that an ISA system with audible and visual
warnings at 1-2 mph over the speed limit would be acceptable, while 79
percent would accept a system intervening at 10 mph over the limit.
IIHS recommended that NHTSA validate this self-reported finding using
the simulator study, and noted that many other parameters likely
influencing acceptance, such as warning timing, have received little
research attention.
NHTSA appreciates this comment. The study's questionnaires will
include items asking whether participants would find ISA intervention
acceptable at 1-2 mph, 5 mph, and 10 mph over the posted speed limit,
which will allow NHTSA to compare simulator-based acceptance ratings at
each threshold against IIHS's survey findings. In Study 1, drivers will
experience different speed limit thresholds, allowing us to better
understand drivers' acceptance after experiencing these systems. NHTSA
agrees that other parameters affecting acceptance, such as warning
timing, warrant further study and will consider them as the study
protocol is finalized
IIHS also reported that in its own study, visual-only ISA warnings
ranked higher in acceptance than warnings paired with audible cues, and
suggested this effect may be magnified by the false alert rate, since
conditions with false alerts would better reflect the accuracy levels
of current ISA implementations. IIHS recommended that NHTSA examine the
influence of speed limit detection accuracy on acceptance, noting that
real-world ISA performance is imperfect and that no study has
systematically manipulated the false alert rate of speed warnings while
measuring acceptance.
NHTSA appreciates this comment and agrees that the interaction
between alert accuracy and display modality is an important research
gap. As noted in NHTSA's response to other comments in this notice, the
ISA systems used in the simulator-based study drives are not modeled as
100% accurate; participants will encounter instances of imperfect
system performance across the ISA systems and modalities evaluated,
which will allow NHTSA to examine how alert accuracy interacts with
acceptance of different display types.
IIHS commented that in its study, early exposure to audible cues
led participants to glance at the instrument cluster and reduce speed
before the onset of the audible alert, suggesting behavioral adaptation
to avoid the alert, and cited other literature describing similar
longer-term adaptations, such as drivers maintaining speed just below
alert thresholds to avoid repeated warnings. IIHS recommended deeper
exploration of these learning effects.
NHTSA appreciates this comment. NHTSA agrees that behavioral
adaptation to repeated ISA alerts is an important consideration.
Studies 2 and 3 involve prolonged, within-subject exposure to two ISA
systems, which may surface some early adaptation effects; however, a
single-visit study cannot capture the longer-term learning effects IIHS
describes. NHTSA will consider this a priority area for potential
future longitudinal ISA research.
Furthermore, IIHS recommended that NHTSA examine relative
differences in acceptance among visual-only, visual-auditory, and
visual-haptic ISA displays, noting that a reliable acceptance advantage
for haptic over auditory warnings has been observed in other crash-
avoidance contexts, such as lane departure warning, but has not been
studied for ISA. IIHS noted that this research gap may partly reflect
European law's prohibition on haptic ISA warnings unless delivered
through the accelerator pedal, a restriction that would not apply to
U.S. vehicles.
NHTSA appreciates this comment. The ISA systems evaluated in Study
1 include a haptic variant alongside visual and auditory systems,
allowing NHTSA to compare acceptance across modalities, including the
visual-haptic comparison IIHS highlights. NHTSA will ensure this
comparison is addressed in the resulting technical report.
Affected Public: Individuals 18 and older from Eastern Iowa and the
surrounding areas who have volunteered to take part in driving studies
or who have opted to receive research-related emails from the
University of Iowa mass email system. Respondents must meet specific
eligibility criteria to be included in this information collection.
Businesses are

[[Page 65619]]

ineligible for the sample and will not be contacted.
Estimated Number of Respondents: We estimate 700 respondents will
initiate the eligibility questionnaire. We anticipate 475 respondents
will complete the eligibility questionnaire. To account for dropout or
missing data, we anticipate enrolling up to 300 respondents to reach
our target sample of 240 drivers.
Frequency: This study will be conducted once during the three-year
period for which NHTSA is requesting approval.
Estimated Number of Responses: We estimate 3,000 total responses.
The estimated number of responses reflects the number of respondents
anticipated at each component of this information collection request.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: The total estimated burden for
this information collection is 931 hours. The annual burden is 308
hours.
The individual form and procedure burden contributions are outlined
in the below text and tables (Table 1).
<bullet> Eligibility Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 2179): We estimate
700 respondents will initiate a response to the online eligibility
questionnaire one time, with 475 respondents completing the
questionnaire. Respondents that initiate but do not complete the
questionnaire (four minutes) and respondents that complete the entire
questionnaire (15 minutes), this results in an average of approximately
12 minutes for 700 respondents, with a single response each.
<bullet> Informed Consent Document (NHTSA Form 2180): We expect 50
participants to complete this form prior to their participation.
Participants will take approximately 15 minutes to complete the form
one time.
<bullet> Informed Consent Document (NHTSA Form 2181): We expect 250
participants to complete this form prior to their participation.
Participants will take approximately 15 minutes to complete the form
one time.
<bullet> Intake & Eligibility Confirmation (NHTSA Form 2267): We
expect 300 participants to complete this block of procedures one time
with a duration of five minutes.
<bullet> Wellness Questionnaire (NHTSA Form 2182): We expect 300
participants to take approximately two minutes to complete this form
three times for a total burden of six minutes.
<bullet> Questionnaire 1 (NHTSA Form 2183): We expect it will take
six minutes for completion. 50 respondents will complete this form five
times.
<bullet> Driving Behavior Assessment [Study 1] and Questionnaire 2
(NHTSA Form 2184): We expect 50 participants to complete the behavior
assessment and Questionnaire 2 once. Participants will take 85 minutes
to complete the block of procedures. The procedures include a pre-drive
PowerPoint training and simulator orientation of approximately five
minutes, a familiarization drive of approximately 15 minutes, five
study drives of approximately 12 minutes each, and a post-drive
questionnaire of approximately five minutes.
<bullet> Questionnaire 3 (NHTSA Form 2185): We expect it will take
10 minutes for completion. 250 respondents will complete this form
once.
<bullet> Driving Behavior Assessment [Study 2 and 3] and
Questionnaire 4 (NHTSA Form 2186): We expect 250 participants to
complete the driving behavior assessment and Questionnaire 4 once.
Participants will take 125 minutes to complete the block of procedures.
The procedures include a pre-drive PowerPoint training and simulator
orientation of approximately five minutes, a familiarization drive of
approximately 15 minutes, two study drives of approximately 45 minutes
each, and a post-drive questionnaire of approximately 15 minutes.

Table 1--Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time per
NHTSA Form No. Information collection Number of Frequency of response Burden hours
respondents response (minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2179.......................... Eligibility 700 1 12 140
Questionnaire.
2180.......................... Informed Consent 50 1 15 13
Document 1.
2181.......................... Informed Consent 250 1 15 63
Document 2.
2267.......................... Intake & Eligibility 300 1 5 25
Confirmation.
2182.......................... Wellness Questionnaire.. 300 3 2 30
2183.......................... Questionnaire 1......... 50 5 6 25
2184.......................... Driving Behavior 50 1 85 71
Assessment [Study 1]
and Questionnaire 2.
2185.......................... Questionnaire 3......... 250 1 10 42
2186.......................... Driving Behavior 250 1 125 522
Assessment [Study 2 and
3] and Questionnaire 4.
-------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... ........................ ............ ............ ............ 931
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $0.
Respondents will not incur any reporting or recordkeeping costs
from the information collection. The only cost respondents will incur
is a one-time cost for local travel to and from DSRI. The costs are
minimal and are expected to be offset by the monetary compensation that
will be provided to all participants who enroll.
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, Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2026-21054 Filed 10-14-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on October 15, 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.