Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for Comment; Assessment of Contextual Driver Monitoring Systems (DMS)

Issuing agencies

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 assess contextual driver monitoring systems (DMS). A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following information collection was published on June 10, 2026 (with an administrative correction published June 18, 2026).

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 192 (Tuesday, October 6, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 6, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63642-63650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20394]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0060]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the 
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for 
Comment; Assessment of Contextual Driver Monitoring Systems (DMS)

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 document 
describes a collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek 
OMB approval to assess contextual driver monitoring systems (DMS). A 
Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting 
comments on the following information collection was published on June 
10, 2026 (with an administrative correction published June 18, 2026).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 5, 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 Jeffrey

[[Page 63643]]

Dressel, Office of Vehicle Safety Research, Human Factors/Engineering 
Integration Division NSR-310, West Building, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 
366-7409; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#325857545440574b1c5640574141575e72565d461c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="264c43404054435f084254435555434a6642495208414950">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

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: Assessment of Contextual Driver Monitoring Systems (DMS).
    OMB Control Number: New.
    Form Number(s): There are multiple forms for this new information 
collection including:

<bullet> NHTSA Form 2235--Advertisement
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2243--Eligibility Questionnaire & Availability Form
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2249--Scheduling Form
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2236--Appointment Reminder Form
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2246--Informed Consent Document
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2238--Demographics Questionnaire
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2251--Simulator Sickness Questionnaire
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2239--Acceptance Questionnaire 1
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2240--Acceptance Questionnaire 2
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2241--Acceptance Questionnaire 3
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2242--Acceptance Questionnaire 4
<bullet> NHTSA Form 2237--Debrief & Honorarium Confirmation Form

    Type of Request: New information collection.
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from date of 
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing a new information 
collection consisting of a single, one-time experimental research study 
that involves voluntary participation from members of the public. The 
purpose of this research is to develop and evaluate a prototype 
contextual DMS, which fuses data gathered from driver attention (e.g., 
gaze location), physiological state (e.g., heart rate variability), 
vehicle kinematics (e.g., lateral lane position) and environmental 
sensors (e.g., time to collision). The research goals are to examine 
the efficacy of a contextual DMS with respect to safety-critical events 
and assess driver response and acceptance. Data collection will occur 
as needed, and results will be shared with NHTSA for eventual 
publication in the National Transportation Library for public access. 
The final report will include a literature review and a supplementary 
report documenting the down-selection process of candidate DMS systems 
and scenarios. This information collection is for reporting purposes.
    This information collection will be a one-time effort to recruit 48 
participants from the public to address NHTSA's research questions on 
the effectiveness of a contextual DMS. Recruitment will occur via 
Westat's internal participant database and social media posts, with sex 
and age balanced among experimental groups. No specific experience is 
required to participate, but generally, participants must be at least 
18 years old, possess a valid driver's license, and drive at least 3000 
miles per year. Participation is voluntary and individuals may withdraw 
at any time. This research will require Westat's institutional review 
board (IRB) approval.
    Participant attrition is acknowledged, and specific measures are 
being taken to ensure the target sample size is achieved. Participants 
will complete a series of four drives in a driving simulator using 
either a contextual or conventional DMS. The conventional DMS will 
consist of either a research or production-grade DMS model that uses 
standard practices at classifying driver distraction (e.g., gaze 
direction, head pose). The contextual DMS will retain all the 
capabilities of the conventional DMS but will also factor in driver 
physiological state (e.g., heart rate variability), vehicle handling 
(i.e., kinematics), and driver interactions with the driving 
environment (e.g., extended glances towards hazards). While completing 
the driving scenarios, participants will perform a secondary task in 
which they recite number strings displayed on an adjacent tablet, 
mimicking distraction from a smartphone or infotainment system, in 
order to assess the performance of the DMS during distracting events.
    Each of the four drives will be approximately ten minutes in length 
to allow for sufficient data collection. All drives will consist of 
typical highway driving environments and speeds.
    The first three drives will have one of three safety-relevant 
events (i.e., events that could cause a crash) occur at randomized 
drive portions. The last drive will consist of a safety-critical 
scenario that requires drivers to perform an action (e.g., brake) to 
avoid a collision, such as a covered-to-revealed road obstruction. The 
first three drives will be counterbalanced to control for order 
effects, however due to the potential for significant behavioral 
changes, the safety-critical scenario will always occur last.
    Eligibility screening will be completed through an online 
questionnaire (NHTSA Form 2243--Eligibility Questionnaire & 
Availability Form) hosted by Qualtrics, a secure online survey 
administration platform. Form display and branching logic will ensure 
respondents see the minimal number of questions required to determine 
eligibility by ending the questionnaire early if criteria are not met 
at different points in time. The components include (1) a PRA statement 
informing participants about the rules governing federally funded 
research; (2) consent for the eligibility questionnaire and study 
introduction and description to inform participants about the study and 
specific data to be collected; (3) eligibility questionnaire to 
identify participants based on predefined criteria; and (4) contact 
information for scheduling purposes.
    The landing page of the questionnaire will contain a forced 
response question asking if the respondent is above 18 years old, then 
(if yes) branching logic will display the consent text that contains 
the elements necessary for eligibility consent. Participants will 
provide consent to the online questionnaire when they answer ``yes'' to 
both the consent and study interest questions. These questions will be 
set to force response. Respondents who are less than 18 years old, or 
those who do not give consent to provide responses to the online 
eligibility questionnaire, or who are not interested in the study will 
be directed to a message informing them they are not eligible and 
thanking them for their time. Everyone else will be directed to 
complete the questionnaire. The questionnaire will ask potential 
participants about their ability to adhere to study requirements, 
driving qualifications, and general health history.
    If criteria are not met, participants will be directed to a message 
thanking them for their time and telling them they are not eligible. If 
criteria are met, participants will be asked to provide their contact 
information and general availability. They will be informed this

[[Page 63644]]

would link their questionnaire responses to their name. If a 
participant meets study criteria, a researcher will schedule the study 
session using participant information provided in the eligibility 
questionnaire and confirmed by a scheduling phone call, where the 
participant's name, study date and time is recorded as part of 
recruitment record keeping (NHTSA Form 2249--Scheduling Form), until 
all slots have been filled. Approximately 24 hours before the 
participant's study session, NHTSA Form 2236--Appointment Reminder Form 
will be sent (via email) along with a copy of the informed consent 
document for their records. This email will also serve to remind 
participants to abstain from alcohol and recreational substance use 
(including marijuana) 24 hours before their study session. The email 
also requests that participants verify they have no current symptoms of 
illness, do not feel unwell, that they have experienced no changes to 
their health or mobility since completion of the eligibility 
questionnaire and to respond to the email confirming their attendance, 
which will be recorded by researchers as part of recruitment 
recordkeeping. Note that recruitment record keeping will be kept 
separate from any data collected during the study to maintain 
confidentiality.
    Participants will be quasi-randomly assigned to complete four 
simulated driving scenarios using either a conventional or contextual 
DMS. Researchers will attempt to balance age and sex across groups. All 
data will be anonymized such that any data linking study data to 
participant eligibility criteria will be kept separate and secured on 
Westat systems that are only accessible by the research team. Only 
participants who complete the study will have their data retained for 
three years per OMB data storage requirements. All other data will be 
destroyed after the project period of performance.
    Upon arrival at the study location, participants will be greeted 
and led to a private room where data collection will occur. Researchers 
will review the participant's driver's license to ensure validity, age 
and sex for participation eligibility and condition balancing. 
Participants will then complete NHTSA Form 2246--Informed Consent 
Document, which will be presented physically for both the participant 
and researcher to sign. If individuals agree to participate, they will 
then proceed with the Intake Procedures, completing the NHTSA Form 
2238--Demographic Questionnaire on a tablet using Qualtrics. If 
participants decline to participate, they will be thanked for their 
interest and escorted out.
    The second component of the Intake Procedures consists of driving 
simulator training to determine if participants can complete study 
procedures (i.e., no simulator sickness). Participants will be directed 
to the driving simulator, where a researcher will describe how to 
operate the driving simulator, and give an overview of the DMS 
functions and alerts. Participants will receive the same explanation 
for the DMS functionality regardless of DMS type to enable group 
comparisons across self-report measures. Next, participants will 
receive an explanation of the secondary task, called the Numbers Task, 
which will be displayed on a tablet next to the driving simulator 
designed to replicate smartphone or infotainment center distraction. 
Researchers will inform participants that their recitations will be 
scored for accuracy to encourage consistent engagement with the 
secondary task while driving. After all procedures have been explained, 
participants will be instrumented with a physiological sensor suite to 
capture participant heart rate variability and electrodermal activity. 
These sensors do not interfere with participant dexterity or mobility.
    After the sensors have been secured, participants will complete a 
5-minute practice drive to familiarize themselves with vehicle control 
and secondary tasks. This drive will be similar to the study driving 
scenarios, including highway setting and speed (e.g., >45 mph). 
However, no safety events will occur during the practice drive. 
Participants can request as many practice drives as needed to feel 
comfortable with the driving simulator. Participants will then complete 
NHTSA Form 2251--Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) to assess any 
symptoms that developed during the practice drive. If participants are 
feeling unwell, they will be provided with bottled water and a place to 
rest until symptoms have passed. The SSQ will be administered to 
participants following each study drive to continuously monitor 
participant wellbeing. Participants may stop driving at any point 
during practice or study drives.
    Participants will then complete a series of four driving scenarios, 
all of which consist of standard highway driving and will take ten 
minutes to complete as part of Data Collection Activities. These drives 
are 10 minutes long to ensure adequate distraction data is captured 
from both DMS. The first three scenarios will not contain a safety-
critical scenario due to potential behavioral changes resulting from 
the near crash and will be counterbalanced to control for order 
effects. The safety-critical scenario will occur in the final drive 
(e.g., a covered-to-revealed road obstruction). No other vehicle 
maneuvers will prevent a crash from occurring. The secondary task will 
be coordinated with the safety-critical event such that participants 
will be engaged in the task immediately preceding the safety-critical 
event to ensure consistency in assessment of the DMS. After each drive, 
participants will complete NHTSA Form 2239--Acceptance Questionnaire 1, 
which consists of survey questions focused on the usefulness, 
annoyance, predictability, timing, and perceived accuracy of the DMS. 
After all drives have been completed, participants will complete NHTSA 
Form 2240--Acceptance Questionnaire 2, which asks two questions about 
the participant's comfort level with being monitored by the DMS and 
their preference for having such a system in their vehicle (i.e., their 
acceptance of the DMS). This questionnaire is administered once after 
all drives to ensure that participants have sufficient exposure to the 
system, providing more consistent and well-informed feedback regarding 
their experiences.
    Next, participants proceed to System Comparison Activities. To help 
participants understand the differences between the two DMS types, they 
will watch four videos, one for each driving scenario, accompanied by 
explanations highlighting how the systems differ. The DMS will be 
labeled as System A (conventional DMS) and System B (contextual DMS) to 
avoid biasing participants. As the contextual DMS is a prototype of a 
new technology, it is critical to examine how a deeper understanding 
with its functionality influences participant opinions. After each set 
of videos (a total of four), participants will complete NHTSA Form 
2241--Acceptance Questionnaire 3. The questionnaire will ask 
participants to rate the systems side-by-side on factors of usefulness, 
annoyance, predictability, timing, and perception of system accuracy of 
the system's distraction detection for a total of four repetitions. 
Participants will watch the videos in the order they experienced the 
driving scenario. However, the presentation of System A and System B 
videos will be counterbalanced across drives to control order effects. 
After all sets of videos have been watched, participants will complete 
a final survey (NHTSA Form 2242--Acceptance Questionnaire 4) to assess 
their comfort with DMS

[[Page 63645]]

monitoring and their acceptance of the two DMS. They will be asked to 
indicate their system preference, if they have one.
    After the study is completed, participants will complete NHTSA Form 
2237--Debrief & Honorarium Confirmation Form where researchers will 
discuss the purpose of the study and answer any remaining questions. As 
part of this process, participants will complete a document 
acknowledging receipt of the honorarium. Participants will receive $120 
for completing the study, which is anticipated to last approximately 
two hours.
    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 from roadway crashes. Alternatively, the systems may 
not reach this potential or could potentially decrease safety when 
drivers do not understand how to safely interact with the systems or do 
not understand the capabilities and limitations. This new information 
request is for a driving simulator study designed to assess a new type 
of driver monitoring system that uses external sensor data to identify 
potential hazards, determine driver distraction based on whether they 
observed the hazard and modify countermeasures based on this joint 
understanding of driver distraction and the driving environment. The 
following components will be used to obtain the necessary information 
to achieve this purpose.
    NHTSA Form 2235--Advertisement--This form is necessary to recruit 
potential participants. This document's content will be published on 
the contractor's intranet and social media channels, as well as 
distributed via email to a database of former participants expressing 
interest in future research. Participants who are interested in 
participating will be redirected to NHTSA Form 2243--Eligibility 
Questionnaire & Availability Form to determine eligibility.
    NHTSA Form 2243--Eligibility Questionnaire & Availability Form--
Determining participant eligibility is critical both for completing the 
study objectives as well as the health and wellbeing of participants. 
This process will involve online screening and diverse outreach 
efforts, such as social media advertisements and intranet postings, to 
assemble a representative participant pool. At the end of the 
eligibility questionnaire, participants will also provide their contact 
information and days of the week and session times they are available 
to participate so researchers may contact them to schedule their study 
session.
    NHTSA Form 2249--Scheduling Form--The next step in the enrollment 
process involves calling eligible individuals to schedule their 
appointment.
    NHTSA Form 2236--Appointment Confirmation Form--Sending a reminder 
email 24 hours before scheduled sessions is a critical step to ensure 
smooth coordination and minimize participant no-shows. Participants 
will be asked to confirm their intention to attend their session, which 
will be noted by researchers. This form will include essential 
information such as the session time, location, materials to bring, and 
instructions to confirm their attendance. Additionally, the email 
provides an opportunity for participants to ask any last-minute 
questions or inform the research team of scheduling conflicts. This 
step is designed to reinforce participant preparedness, reduce 
logistical issues, and enhance overall study efficiency.
    NHTSA Form 2246--Informed Consent Document--Obtaining informed 
consent upon arrival is an essential step to ensure compliance with 
ethical research standards.
    Intake Procedures--The purpose of the intake procedures is to 
collect important demographic information from participants for 
reporting purposes. Afterward, participants under driving simulator 
training to learn how to operate the driving simulator, respond to the 
secondary task, and to ensure that participants can complete the study 
drives without experiencing motion sickness.
    NHTSA Form 2238--Demographics Questionnaire--Collecting participant 
demographics is an integral part of communicating sample 
characteristics and ensuring representativeness and generalizability. 
Participants will complete an online survey that focuses on only the 
most important demographic characteristics needed to describe the 
sample, including age, sex, ethnicity, highest level of education level 
completed and income. Age and sex are collected a second time to ensure 
balance among experimental conditions.
    Driving Simulator Training--This step is necessary for preparing 
participants for driving in the simulator. Simulator driving may feel 
different from regular driving and requires an adjustment period to 
successfully control the vehicle. In addition, participants who 
experience simulator sickness can withdraw from the study. Before 
entering the vehicle, participants will receive training on the 
operation of the vehicle, the DMS, and the secondary task on an 
adjacent tablet, which is expected to last approximately eight minutes. 
Participants will then enter the vehicle and receive additional 
training. Next, participants will complete a 5-minute familiarization 
drive to practice driving, experience the DMS, and practice completing 
a secondary task.
    NHTSA Form 2251--Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ)--This form 
is required to ascertain whether participants feel well enough to 
continue after the driving simulator training and after each of the 
four subsequent study drives (administered five times). The SSQ is 
important to administer after the last drive because some participants 
may feel motion sickness due to vehicle control or the safety-critical 
event and would require monitoring from study staff until the symptoms 
pass.
    Data Collection Activities--This process is required because it 
captures the information necessary to answer NHTSA's research questions 
regarding acceptance and the valuation of the contextual DMS. It is 
composed of two subcomponents: study drives, and a DMS acceptance form. 
Each subcomponent is discussed in greater detail below. The 
subcomponents of burden can be seen below.
    Driving Scenario Test Drives--These driving scenarios will serve as 
the main source of data collection. Measures will include data gathered 
from the driving simulator that relate to vehicle control (e.g., 
standard deviation of lane position, velocity), driver behavior (e.g., 
gaze location, head and body pose data) gathered from the DMS, and 
driver physiological data (e.g., electrodermal activity, heart rate 
variability). Participants will complete four driving scenarios using 
either a conventional or contextual DMS. All drives mimic standard 
highway settings and speed. The first three driving scenarios will have 
non-crash imminent events (e.g., passing vehicles, merging) and will be 
counterbalanced to control for order effects. The last drive will have 
a crash-imminent event (e.g., a covered-to-revealed road obstruction). 
The secondary task will be synchronized with the simulator such that 
participants will be distracted approaching the hazard to ensure 
validity of the DMS assessment.
    NHTSA Form 2239--Acceptance Questionnaire 1: This questionnaire is 
critical as it directly answers NHTSA's

[[Page 63646]]

research question regarding how a contextual DMS affects driver 
acceptance of the DMS. The questionnaire will be administered after 
each study drive and consist of five questions related to the 
participant's perception of the DMS's usefulness, annoyance, 
predictability, timing and perceived accuracy.
    NHTSA Form 2240--Acceptance Questionnaire 2: This questionnaire is 
critical as it directly answers NHTSA's research question regarding how 
a contextual DMS affects driver acceptance of the DMS. Two questions 
will be collected focusing on the participant's comfort with DMS 
monitoring and their acceptance of the system. These items were not 
added to NHTSA Form 2239--Acceptance Questionnaire 1 because these 
address long term factors which require more experience with the 
systems before participants can form meaningful conclusions.
    System Comparison Activities: This process is required because it 
contains the information necessary to answer NHTSA's research questions 
regarding acceptance. It is composed of two subcomponents: a review of 
conventional and contextual DMS drives and completing a DMS acceptance 
form. Each subcomponent is discussed in greater detail below.
    Review of Conventional and Contextual DMS Drives: Participants 
watch videos comparing the DMS types across driving scenarios to 
increase their understanding of how a contextual DMS operates. Driving 
scenarios will be presented in the same sequence experienced by the 
participants, while the order of DMS presentation will be 
counterbalanced to control for order effects. Each video is anticipated 
to last two minutes covering the lead up to the DMS action or inaction, 
and the conclusion of the triggering event. Each drive scenario will 
have two videos, one for the conventional DMS and one for the 
contextual DMS (referred to as a set of videos). After each set of 
videos, participants will then complete NHTSA Form 2241--Acceptance 
Questionnaire 3 before proceeding to the next driving scenario.
    NHTSA Form 2241--Acceptance Questionnaire 3: After each video, 
researchers will ask participants to complete this survey, which 
consists of rating both types of DMS side-by-side on the factors of 
interest from NHTSA Form 2239--Acceptance Questionnaire 1.
    NHTSA Form 2242--Acceptance Questionnaire 4: After all sets of 
driving scenario videos have been watched, participants will complete a 
survey comparing the conventional and contextual DMS in terms of 
monitoring comfort and acceptance, as well explicating indicating their 
preference for the conventional or contextual DMS.
    NHTSA Form 2237--Debrief & Honorarium Confirmation Form--Debriefing 
is an essential study component which is designed to gather participant 
insights and refine study outcomes. Following NHTSA Form 2241--
Acceptance Questionnaire 4 completion, participants will engage in a 
semi-structured debriefing session where the researcher will explain 
the purpose of the study and participants will provide feedback on the 
DMS, including usability and their overall study experience. This 
process allows researchers to identify potential issues, capture 
subjective perspectives, and gain insights into interface design 
features (e.g., alerts, warnings), ensuring comprehensive evaluation 
and improving the quality of study findings. The honorarium 
confirmation form will be completed after the debrief and is necessary 
because it ensures that participants are compensated for their time and 
provides a record of compensation.
    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 10, 2026 (91 FR 35296), with an 
administrative correction published on June 18, 2026 (91 FR 36946). 
NHTSA received a total of 11 comments from: Alliance for Automotive 
Innovation (Auto Innovators), Responsibility.Org and the National 
Alliance to Stop Impaired Driving (NASID), Mitsubishi Electric 
Automotive America (MEAA), The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's 
Highway Loss Data Institute (IIHS HLDI), Consumer Reports (CR), 
American Trucking Associations (ATA), and comments from five 
individuals: Juli Patrick, Sean Patrick, Paul Runstrom, Emily Faubion, 
and Sergio Drosihn. The following excerpts summarize the key points 
submitted by commenters for NHTSA's consideration; all cited references 
have been removed for brevity. When applicable, to facilitate a clear 
mapping of the agency's response to the specific issues raised, the 
points are numbered to correspond with the numbered responses below.
    Auto Innovators stated that the notice did not describe in detail 
the methods and scenarios to be used in the research, concerns over 
whether the DMS used would reflect commercially available systems and 
whether limited exposure to such a system would reflect the efficacy of 
such systems, and concern with the use of physiological measures and 
their feasibility of use with in-vehicle systems.
    NHTSA thanks Auto Innovators for the feedback on this topic. 
Regarding the specific points, NHTSA agrees with Auto Innovators about 
the need to be specific with regard to the construction of the 
candidate contextual DMS system and associated scenarios. While the 60-
day notice provides a high-level summary, these operating parameters 
will be described in full detail in the research and analysis plan and 
included in the final report. Specifically, the candidate scenarios 
(and alerting strategies) are safety-relevant and selected based on 
conditions where a contextual DMS may offer enhanced safety and 
performance over a conventional DMS, and part of the system down-
selection process involves engaging with industry stakeholders, 
including original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and tier-one 
suppliers, to gather feedback on scenario definitions, alerting 
approaches, and sensor integration parameters. NHTSA also agrees with 
Auto Innovators' point regarding the study limitations of a prototype 
contextual DMS compared to an eventual commercial application and will 
clearly qualify findings with regard to future generalization of a 
commercial contextual DMS as appropriate by noting study parameters 
within the controlled simulated environment.
    In addition, NHTSA acknowledges industry perspectives on the 
practical considerations for use of physiological sensors in mass-
market implementation. Physiological measures were referenced to 
illustrate the broader potential range of inputs that a contextual DMS 
could incorporate, and within this exploratory research, if they are 
collected, it will primarily be to better understand participant state 
and cognitive workload under controlled simulated conditions. To ensure 
practical feasibility in vehicle environments, physiological sensors 
that can be integrated directly into touchpoints such as steering 
wheels or in-cabin radar sensors (e.g., heart rate variability 
monitors) may be utilized, whereas intrusive setups (e.g., 
electroencephalography) are not being considered as feasible for 
implementation in this study. In addition to exploring these measures, 
the research study incorporates a broad array of primary performance 
and behavioral metrics, including standard deviation of lane position, 
glance frequency and duration, eyes-off-road time, response times to 
safety-critical events, and driver acceptance questionnaires, to 
evaluate prototype

[[Page 63647]]

contextual DMS efficacy. NHTSA agrees that the report will reflect the 
findings of the exploratory research study, and will make additional 
efforts to qualify the findings as specific to the prototype DMS and 
scenarios tested, to list limitations, and to avoid over-generalization 
of these initial research findings.
    Responsibility.Org and NASID provided three comments, summarized 
here: (1) ``Consider the Impact of Significant Implementation 
Differences in the Proposed Conventional and Contextual DMS 
Approaches,'' (2) ``Equally Evaluate Potential Safety Benefits 
Alongside User Acceptance,'' and (3) ``Future Research Should Consider 
Additional Driver States such as Drowsiness and Impairment.''
    NHTSA thanks Responsibility.Org and NASID for the compelling 
comments. Regarding the first comment, NHTSA acknowledges the 
Responsibility.Org and NASID's perspective regarding potential 
implementation and technological maturity differences, as well as the 
practical considerations of sensor invasiveness. To be clear, NHTSA is 
not building a prototype contextual DMS for future commercial 
implementation; rather, the prototype capability features a production 
equivalent DMS and driving simulator environment, which is designed to 
evaluate the core concept of a potential contextual DMS as it pertains 
to driver acceptance and the potential to yield improved driving 
performance and safety metrics by gathering and utilizing contextual 
information from the environment. Because the specific prototype 
configurations are still in development, the final hardware and 
software specifications are not fixed yet; however, the research design 
relies on a common baseline production-grade DMS (currently deployed in 
the U.S. vehicle fleet) for both conditions to establish a consistent 
technical foundation. NHTSA recognizes that participant perceptions 
must be interpreted within the context of a controlled laboratory 
simulation rather than a commercial deployment and will ensure 
participants are fully briefed on the exploratory nature of the study, 
noting that questions surrounding features of the prototype system 
tested pertain to hypothetical, potential features. With regard to 
sensor configuration, if included, the intent is to utilize practical, 
non-intrusive touchpoint-integrated physiological sensors (such as 
steering wheel monitors) while avoiding intrusive setups like 
electroencephalography. From the participant's standpoint, the primary 
and most noticeable difference will center on what and how alerts and 
warnings are presented, as the research focus is squarely on evaluating 
these modified alerting strategies rather than evaluating core 
classification capabilities.
    Regarding Responsibility.Org and NASID's second comment, NHTSA 
agrees that assessing safety outcomes alongside user acceptance is 
critical for understanding the underlying value of contextual 
intelligence (as described by the commenter). In addition to measuring 
subjective perceptions of usefulness, annoyance, and acceptance, the 
research study incorporates a comprehensive array of primary 
performance and behavioral metrics, such as standard deviation of lane 
position, glance frequency and duration, eyes-off-road time, response 
times to safety-critical events, and driver acceptance questionnaires 
(including trust calibration dynamics), to evaluate prototype 
contextual DMS efficacy. Furthermore, while NHTSA concurs with the 
commenter on the fundamental importance of trust in the functional use 
of a contextual DMS, it notes that recent research indicates there may 
not always be sufficient discriminant validity between measures of 
acceptance and trust (R[ouml]nkk[ouml] & Cho, 2022; \1\ Chen, et al., 
2023 \2\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ R[ouml]nkk[ouml], M., & Cho, E. (2022). An updated guideline 
for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational Research 
Methods, 25(1), 6-14. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120968614">https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120968614</a>.
    \2\ Chen, Y., Khalid Khan, S., Shiwakoti, N., Stasinopoulos, P., 
& Aghabayk, K. (2023). Analysis of Australian public acceptance of 
fully automated vehicles by extending technology acceptance model. 
Case Studies on Transport Policy, 14, 101072. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2023.101072">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2023.101072</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Responsibility.Org and NASID's third comment, NHTSA 
acknowledges the recommendation to consider broader driver states such 
as drowsiness, fatigue, medical events, and substance impairment in 
future efforts.
    Mitsubishi Electronic Automotive America, Inc. (MEAA) made multiple 
comments focused in four topic areas: (1) ``The Necessity and Practical 
Utility of Information Collection'', (2) ``Accuracy of the Burden 
Estimate,'' (3) ``Ways to Improve the Quality, Utility and Clarity of 
Collected Information,'' and (4) ``Ways to Minimize Respondent 
Burden.''
    NHTSA thanks MEAA for their helpful comments. Regarding the first 
topic, NHTSA acknowledges the commenter's interest in metrics such as 
sensitivity, false positive rate, ROC/AUC, and reaction time. Because 
both the conventional and contextual conditions utilize the same 
underlying camera-based classification architecture, with the 
contextual DMS primarily modifying alert timing and presentation based 
on additional inputs, thus, system-level classification performance 
differences is not an experimental variable. Consequently, the research 
focus is on evaluating the comparative impact of these modified 
alerting strategies rather than re-evaluating core algorithmic 
classification. Where available, manufacturer-reported DMS performance 
metrics will be included in the final report to provide contextual 
transparency.
    In addition, NHTSA notes that physiological measures are referenced 
primarily to illustrate the broader range of multi-modal inputs that a 
conceptual, future-generation contextual DMS could potentially 
incorporate to gather deeper contextual driver state information. To 
the extent physiological sensing hardware and software are utilized in 
the study, they will serve to monitor participant state under 
controlled simulator conditions rather than validate hardware-level 
measurement accuracy or establish commercial sensor specifications. 
Because the primary focus of this study is driving performance and the 
potential safety benefit of these additional inputs rather than testing 
a production-ready sensor suite, any collected physiological signals 
will support the evaluation of relative changes in cognitive workload 
and driver acceptance.
    Regarding MEAA's second topic, NHTSA appreciates the detailed 
review of the burden calculation assumptions. The figures, rounding for 
Form 2242, and participant cost accounting will be verified and 
reconciled in the final package to ensure full consistency across all 
tables and narrative text, and unrevised placeholders will be 
corrected.
    In response to MEAA's third topic, where available, NHTSA will 
include manufacturer-reported DMS performance metrics in the final 
report. To the extent physiological sensing hardware and software are 
utilized in the study, high-quality research-grade equipment will serve 
to monitor participant state under controlled simulator conditions 
rather than validate hardware-level measurement accuracy or establish 
commercial sensor specifications. When available, the error margin 
reported by the manufacturer will be included in the final report. 
Because the primary focus of this research is driving performance and 
potential safety impact, rather than testing a production-ready sensor 
suite, any collected physiological signals will support the evaluation 
of relative changes in cognitive workload.

[[Page 63648]]

Furthermore, alerts will be constructed in a method designed to enable 
preemptive DMS alert status, where perceived false alarms will be 
captured by the acceptance questionnaires.
    In addition, the conventional and contextual conditions utilize the 
same production-grade DMS currently employed in the U.S. vehicle fleet. 
NHTSA will include the relevant DMS and alerting capabilities described 
in the final report, alongside a transparent description of the down-
selection process, which is focused specifically on driving performance 
and safety metrics, rather than evaluating different core DMS hardware 
platforms. NHTSA agrees with the point regarding the scope of 
comparisons, as this study is designed to assess the differences 
between a contextual DMS and a conventional DMS rather than validate 
the importance of DMS relative to vehicles without such systems.
    Also, NHTSA agrees with the potential inferential limitation 
regarding the effects of video comparisons to experiencing the drives. 
We will take care to construct the videos as closely as possible, but 
will acknowledge the associated limitations in the final report. While 
the final research report and aggregated summary metrics will be made 
publicly available, releasing raw participant datasets directly is not 
feasible at this stage due to privacy protections, proprietary baseline 
DMS architecture agreements, and human-subjects data governance 
restrictions regarding personally identifiable information (PII).
    Regarding MEAA's fourth topic, NHTSA agrees that the use of 
electronic submission is helpful at reducing participant burden. It is 
anticipated to be the primary form of survey cataloguing from this 
study. To further minimize burden, NHTSA will limit questionnaires to 
only those items strictly necessary for the research objectives and 
will utilize clear pre-briefings and standardized protocols to minimize 
participant confusion and ensure high data quality.
    The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's Highway Loss Data 
Institute (IIHS HLDI) provided valuable input summarized into eight 
topic areas: (1) ``[d]esign the study to test when contextual DMS 
provides added value,'' (2) ``[d]istinguish sensing from system 
response,'' (3) [k]eep feedback consistent across conditions,'' (4) 
``[c]ollect baseline data before simulated drives,'' (5) ``[f]irstly, 
evaluate and compare how the DMS solutions identify distraction,'' (6) 
``[c]onsider using production systems or collaborating with industry 
partners,'' (7) ``[a]ccount for prior experience with driver assistance 
technologies,'' and (8) ``[r]econsider the video-based acceptance 
evaluation.''
    NHTSA thanks IIHS HLDI for their valuable feedback. Regarding the 
first topic, NHTSA agrees that the proposed numbers task is likely to 
produce frequent glances away from the roadway, which the conventional 
DMS is well-suited to capture. However, the primary goal of this 
empirical research is to examine potential improved safety behavior and 
acceptance of the contextual DMS. To incorporate this comment, the 
researchers will consider other tasks that may be more cognitively 
distracting than visually distracting. It should be noted that a 
previous commenter recommended the reverse; the researchers will 
consider the balance of cognitive and visual-manual distraction in the 
tasks selected for the experiment.
    Regarding the second topic, NHTSA agrees with IIHS' point about the 
importance of alerting strategies.
    In response to the third topic, NHTSA clarifies that while the 
fundamental alert modalities (auditory sounds and visual instrument 
cluster displays) and content remain identical across both conditions, 
the timing and escalation methods of the alerts in the prototype 
contextual DMS used in this experiment may be adapted based on real-
time traffic conditions, environmental data, and time-to-collision 
metrics. Unlike the conventional DMS, which may trigger alerts strictly 
using standard driver gaze thresholds, vehicle measures, or a mix of 
both, the prototype contextual DMS will have the capability to 
preemptively issue or escalate alerts when an imminent traffic hazard 
is detected or suppress/de-escalate alerts if the driver is already 
actively attending to the specific roadway threat. This localized 
adjustment in alert timing and feedback structure serves as the core 
mechanism being evaluated to determine whether adapting feedback to the 
driving context improves driver responses to safety-critical scenarios, 
improves overall driver acceptance as a function of reduced false 
alarms, and ultimately improves safety.
    Regarding the fourth topic, NHTSA agrees with the importance of 
establishing baseline measures of driving behavior and driver state. To 
incorporate this comment, baseline measures will be captured in the 
pre-driving simulations component as part of the quality checks to 
ensure adequate data quality throughout the session.
    With regard to the fifth topic, NHTSA agrees that DMS sensor fusion 
can introduce additional noise in the model. To ensure that the DMS 
performance remains the same across integrated sensor systems, the same 
production-quality DMS will remain unchanged. The alerting strategies 
are informed and modified by additional simulated driving environment 
sensors, allowing repeatability. NHTSA currently anticipates 
physiological data being used for exploratory purposes of workload 
assessment.
    Regarding IIHS HLDI's sixth topic, the proposed prototype DMS is a 
production-grade system currently available in the U.S. vehicle fleet, 
with proposed alerting modalities and iconography reflecting common 
designs. Furthermore, the research will involve outreach to industry 
stakeholders, providing valuable feedback during the down-selection 
process to ensure the selected sensors, scenarios, and alerting 
strategies are feasible and practical.
    In response to the seventh topic, NHTSA agrees that controlling for 
participant prior experience with ADAS is an important study 
consideration. To incorporate this comment, NHTSA and the researchers 
amended the eligibility questionnaire to collect data on whether 
participants have used a system that monitors their attention.
    Regarding the eighth topic, NHTSA clarifies that the study design 
relies primarily on extensive, hands-on driving experience across four 
distinct simulated drives (three safety-relevant and one safety-
critical) before any video-based preference evaluations occur. 
Participants complete iterative technology acceptance questionnaires 
(Acceptance Questionnaires 1 and 2) directly following their hands-on 
driving sessions. The comparative video phase and subsequent 
questionnaires (Acceptance Questionnaires 3 and 4) are administered 
only after direct operational experience is established, serving solely 
to help participants articulate nuanced preference tradeoffs between 
the two specific architectural approaches.
    Consumer Reports expressed support for the research and provided 
valuable feedback, summarized into four topic areas: (1) specificity of 
the description of the research design, including operational 
definitions, specific physiological metrics, and baseline conditions, 
(2) concern with the proposed sample size, a recommendation to conduct 
a power analysis, and a suggestion to consider prior participants' 
experience with DMS, (3) a recommendation to consider a visual-manual 
distraction task as well as a cognitive distraction task, and (4) a 
recommendation to keep researcher scripts strictly neutral in the video

[[Page 63649]]

comparison explanation component of the research, to avoid a potential 
halo effect or injecting other biases.
    In response to Consumer Reports' first topic, NHTSA agrees with 
Consumer Reports' points regarding variable definitions and 
characteristics. While the 60-day notice provides a high-level summary, 
these variables are described in the full research and analysis plan 
and will be included in the final report. NHTSA agrees with the 
importance of establishing baseline measures of driving behavior and 
driver state. This will be captured in the pre-driving simulations 
component as part of the quality checks to ensure adequate data quality 
throughout the session.
    Regarding the second topic, a power analysis was included in the 
full research and analysis plan and will be included in the final 
report. The 2 (between; DMS type) x 4 (within; drive type) returned 
sufficient statistical power to detect a small effect with a between 
subjects group size of 24. To further incorporate Consumer Reports' 
comment, a sensitivity power analysis with more conservative 
assumptions was performed to seek greater confidence in the adequacy of 
the planned sample size, and the sample size was confirmed. Regarding 
Consumer Reports' suggestion to consider prior participants' experience 
with DMS, a screening question will be added to assess prior 
experience. This question will be administered during contact 
information collection for eligible respondents, meaning it will only 
target a subset of those who complete the screener. Consequently, the 
addition of this single question is expected to introduce negligible 
burden to participants.
    In response to Consumer Reports' third topic, NHTSA acknowledges 
the value of evaluating multiple distraction modalities and notes that 
the proposed numbers task is specifically structured to test visual-
manual and cognitive demands by requiring drivers to look away from the 
road to an adjacent tablet to recite digit sequences. To further 
incorporate this comment, the researchers will consider incorporating 
additional tasks that target different distraction modalities, 
including visual-manual and purely cognitive tasks.
    Regarding the fourth topic, NHTSA agrees with Consumer Reports' 
assessment of the importance of keeping procedures neutral to avoid 
biasing participants. We will carefully review procedures, scripts, and 
videos to ensure neutral language, and that there is no favoritism for 
a particular system.
    American Trucking Associations (ATA) provided insightful comments, 
stating that contextual DMS in the trucking industry has been shown to 
accommodate drivers' privacy and data capture concerns, as well as 
demonstrating efficacy in providing context-specific feedback and 
training opportunities, concluding that it is valuable for NHTSA to 
study such technologies.
    NHTSA thanks ATA for their insights and feedback on this topic.
    NHTSA appreciates comments received from the five individuals, as 
well. Paul Runstrom's comment addressed alcohol impairment detection; 
NHTSA clarifies that such technologies are not within the scope of this 
project. Juli Patrick and Sean Patrick both shared concerns about the 
potential accuracy, false alarm and false positive rates of potential 
contextual DMS. NHTSA acknowledges and notes those concerns, and while 
system performance is not the focus of this research, NHTSA anticipates 
such potential effects to be better understood and empirically 
addressed by this research. Emily Faubion described concern with 
unintended consequences of contextual (and non-contextual) DMS 
potentially altering driver behavior. NHTSA acknowledges and notes 
those concerns, and expects such effects to be explored and documented 
by this safety focused research effort. Sergio Drosihn shared a 
suggestion that DMS may serve a safety function best by assessing 
driver consciousness, and by doing so using only posture and head 
position. NHTSA thanks the commenter for his insight and cited 
research; the concern is noted. Several of the commenters mentioned a 
concern with privacy, and DMS capability to collect biometric sensitive 
personally identifiable information. NHTSA thanks the commenters for 
sharing these concerns; the concerns are noted. In addition, NHTSA 
clarifies that one metric of interest in this research is driver 
acceptance of contextual DMS, which may yield results reflecting and 
documenting such concerns.
    After thoughtful consideration of all the above comments, NHTSA 
ensured that additional sensitivity power analyses were conducted, PRA 
documentation was aligned, the eligibility form was updated, and 
cognitive and visual-manual tasks are being considered, among other 
actions to be taken as mentioned above. These modifications yielded an 
addition of two hours in the participant burden estimate from that 
which was published in the 60-day notice, for a total of 134 
participant burden hours.
    Affected Public: Individuals in the Washington, DC metro area who 
have opted to receive research-related emails through the contractor's 
participant database will be contacted. Recruitment efforts will be 
supplemented by advertisements placed on the contractor's intranet and 
via social media posts and advertisements. Respondents must meet 
specific eligibility criteria to be included in this information 
collection. Respondents must (1) be at least 18 years old, (2) possess 
a valid driver's license, (3) drive at least 3,000 miles annually, (4) 
have normal or corrected-to-normal vision, (5) have normal or 
corrected-to-normal hearing, (6) refrain from alcohol and recreational 
substance use (e.g., marijuana) for 24 hours before the session, (7) 
not take sedative or psychotropic medication, (8) not wear bifocal 
lenses while driving, (9) not require specialized driving equipment, 
(10) not have medical conditions that might impact their ability to get 
in and out of vehicles or sit for extended periods of time with 
intermittent driving, (11) no history of simulator sickness.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: The contractor estimates 
contacting 204 respondents to achieve a final, valid dataset consisting 
of 48 respondents. Of the 204 respondents anticipated, the contractor 
anticipates contacting 68 respondents via phone call. Of the 68 
respondents contacted, the contractor anticipates nine percent 
attrition, resulting in 62 scheduled participants; the contractor 
anticipates an attrition rate of nine percent between scheduling and 
study session, resulting in 56 participants attending their scheduled 
session. Some respondents may experience minor simulator sickness and 
be unable to complete the study, which the contractor estimates at 
seven percent, resulting in 52 respondents completing the study. 
Finally, the contractor estimates eight percent of respondent data will 
be unusable due to data quality problems (e.g., equipment malfunction, 
non-compliance), resulting in the target dataset of 48 valid 
respondents.
    Frequency: One-time collection.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: The total estimated burden is 
134 hours, which can be seen in Table 1 and is the sum of the total 
opportunity burden hours column. All data collection is estimated to 
occur within the same year, so the annualized burden equals the total 
burden.

[[Page 63650]]



                                              Table 1--Burden Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Estimated
                                   Information     Total  number    burden per     Frequency of        Total
        NHTSA form No.             collection           of           response        response       opportunity
                                                    respondents      (minutes)        (count)      burden  hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2235..........................  Advertisement...             204               1               1               3
2243..........................  Eligibility                  204               5               1              17
                                 Questionnaire &
                                 Availability
                                 Form.
2249..........................  Scheduling Form.              68               5               1               6
2236..........................  Appointment                   62               1               1               1
                                 Reminder Form.
2246..........................  Informed Consent              56               3               1               3
                                 Document.
2238..........................  Intake                        56              16               1              15
                                 Procedures
                                 (Demographics
                                 Questionnaire,
                                 Driving
                                 Simulator
                                 Training).
2251..........................  Simulator                     52               2               5               9
                                 Sickness
                                 Questionnaire.
2239..........................  Data Collection               52              12               4              43
                                 Activities
                                 (Driving
                                 Scenarios Test
                                 Drives,
                                 Acceptance
                                 Questionnaire
                                 1).
2240..........................  Acceptance                    52               1               1               1
                                 Questionnaire 2.
2241..........................  System                        52               8               4              29
                                 Comparison
                                 Activities
                                 (Review of
                                 Conventional
                                 and Contextual
                                 DMS Drives;
                                 Acceptance
                                 Questionnaire
                                 3).
2242..........................  Acceptance                    52               2               1               2
                                 Questionnaire 4.
2237..........................  Debrief &                     52               6               1               5
                                 Honorarium
                                 Confirmation
                                 Form.
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Burden..............  ................  ..............  ..............  ..............             134
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: Participation is voluntary and 
there will be no start-up or record-keeping costs to respondents to 
obtain these data. The only cost burdens respondents will incur are 
costs related to travel to and from the research location. The costs 
are minimal and are expected to be offset by the honorarium that will 
be provided to the research participants. NHTSA estimates that each 
participant will travel less than 30 miles one-way to the research 
location (60 miles round trip). Using the IRS standard mileage rate of 
$0.70 per mile, each respondent is expected to incur no more than 
$42.00 ($0.70 x 60 miles) in transportation costs. Therefore, estimated 
travel burden costs are no more than $2,352 ($42.00 x 56 respondents).
    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. 2026-20394 Filed 10-5-26; 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>