Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices

Federal RegisterApr 26, 2013

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0053]

Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of Federal guidelines.

SUMMARY:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is concerned about the effects of distraction on motor vehicle safety due to drivers' use of electronic devices. Consequently, NHTSA is issuing nonbinding, voluntary Driver Distraction Guidelines (NHTSA Guidelines) to promote safety by discouraging the introduction of excessively distracting devices in vehicles.

This notice announces the issuance of the final version of the first phase of the NHTSA Guidelines. This first phase applies to original equipment (OE) in-vehicle electronic devices used by the driver to perform secondary tasks (communications, entertainment, information gathering, navigation tasks, etc. are considered secondary tasks) through visual-manual means (i.e., the driver looks at a device, manipulates a device-related control with his or her hand, and/or watches for visual feedback).

The NHTSA Guidelines list certain secondary tasks believed by the agency to interfere inherently with a driver's ability to safely control the vehicle. The NHTSA Guidelines recommend that in-vehicle devices be designed so that they cannot be used by the driver to perform these inherently distracting secondary tasks while driving. For all other visual-manual secondary tasks, the NHTSA Guidelines specify a test method for measuring eye glance behavior during those tasks. Eye glance metrics are compared to acceptance criteria to evaluate whether a task interferes too much with driver attention, rendering it unsuitable for a driver to perform while driving. If a task does not meet the acceptance criteria, the NHTSA Guidelines recommend that the task be made inaccessible for performance by the driver while driving. In addition, the NHTSA Guidelines contain several recommendations to limit and reduce the potential for distraction associated with the use of OE in-vehicle electronic devices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical issues, you may contact Dr. W. Riley Garrott, Vehicle Research and Test Center, phone: (937) 666-3312, facsimile: (937) 666-3590. Dr. Garrott's mailing address is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Vehicle Research and Test Center, P.O. Box B-37, East Liberty, OH 43319.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final version of the first phase of the NHTSA Guidelines does not have the force and effect of law and is not a regulation. These Guidelines will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations but will be posted on NHTSA's Web site,

www.nhtsa.gov,

and on DOT's distracted driving Web site Distraction.gov.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

A. The Problem of Driver Distraction and Related Research

B. NHTSA's Driver Distraction Program

C. The Visual-Manual NHTSA Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices

D. Major Differences Between the Proposed and Final Phase 1 NHTSA Guidelines

II. Background

A. Acronyms Used in Document

B. The Driver Distraction Safety Problem

1. Estimation of Distraction Crash Risk Via Naturalistic Driving Studies

2. Summary of Naturalistic Driving Study Distraction Risk Analyses

C. NHTSA's Comprehensive Response to Driver Distraction

III. The February 2012 Proposed NHTSA Guidelines and Comments

A. The Initial Notice Proposing the NHTSA Guidelines

B. Summary of Comments on the Proposed NHTSA Guidelines

IV. Analysis of Proposal Comments by Issues

A. General Issues

1. NHTSA Should Issue a FMVSS Instead of Guidelines

2. The Alliance Guidelines Adequately Address Distraction

3. Suggestions To Wait for Better Data or Additional Research To Be Completed

4. Suggestions for Using Voluntary Consensus Standards as a Basis for Developing NHTSA's Guidelines

5. Publish NHTSA's Driver Distraction Guidelines to Portable and Aftermarket Devices as Soon as Possible

6. Develop NHTSA's Guidelines To Address Cognitive Distraction and Voice Interfaces as Soon as Possible

7. NHTSA's Intentions for Future Updating of Its Guidelines

8. Reliance on Limited Amount of Research in Developing NHTSA's Guidelines

9. Concerns That Updating Vehicle Models To Meet the NHTSA Guidelines Will Be Expensive

10. Concerns About the NHTSA Guidelines Preventing “911” Emergency Calls

11. Concerns About the NHTSA Guidelines Preventing Passenger Use of Electronic Devices

12. Daytime Running Lights Are Major Cause of Driver Distraction

B. Issues Specific to the NHTSA Guidelines Stated Purpose

1. Concern That Failure To Meet the NHTSA Guidelines Could Result in Enforcement Action

2. NHTSA's Monitoring of Vehicles' Conformance to Its Guidelines

3. Do automakers have to perform testing as described in the NHTSA guidelines?

4. Lead Time for the NHTSA Guidelines

C. Issues Relating to the NHTSA Guidelines Scope

1. Inclusion of Conventional Electronic Devices and Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning in Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines

2. Confusion About Limiting Scope of NHTSA Guidelines to Non-Driving Activities

3. Suggestions To Expand Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines To Cover Medium and Heavy Trucks and Buses

4. Request That Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines Exclude Emergency Response Vehicles

5. Request That Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines Not Include Displays Required by Other Government Bodies

D. Definition of Driving and Lock Out Conditions

1. For Automatic Transmission Vehicles—In Park Versus At or Above 5 mph

2. Definition of Driving for Manual Transmission Vehicles

E. Per Se Lock Out Issues

1. The NHTSA Guidelines Should Not Recommend Per Se Lock Outs of Devices, Functions, and/or Tasks

2. Per Se Lock Out Relating to Displaying Text To Be Read

3. Per Se Lock Out of Manual Text Entry

4. Per Se Lock Out of Graphical and Photographic Images

5. Per Se Lock Out of Displaying Video Images—Dynamic Maps

6. Per Se Lock Out of Watching Video—Trailer Hitching

7. Per Se Lock Out of Automatically Scrolling Lists and Text

8. Clarify Acceptability of Technology That Allows the Driver and Passenger To See Different Content From Same Visual Display

F. Task Acceptance Test Protocol Issues

1. Suggestions for Other Acceptance Test Protocols

2. Concerns About the Use of Radio Tuning as Reference Task

3. NHTSA Has Not Shown That Tasks With TEORT Values Longer Than 12 Seconds Are Less Safe

4. Suggestions for More Stringent Task Acceptance Criteria

5. Concerns Expressed About Long Eye Glances

6. Eye Glance Measurement Issues

7. Occlusion Acceptance Test Criteria Issues

8. Suggestions To Include Effects of Workload Managers in Task Acceptance Criteria

G. Definition of Goal, Dependent Task, and Subtask

H. Driving Simulator Issues

1. Driving Simulator Specifications

2. Suggestions To Improve the Driving Scenario

I. Test Participant Issues

1. Test Participant Demographics

2. Test Participant Impartiality

3. Other Test Participant Qualifications

4. Test Participant Instructions, Training, and Practice

J. Device Response Time Recommendations

K. Downward Viewing Angle Issues

L. Miscellaneous Issues

1. Concerns About Recommendation That Drivers Should Have One Free Hand

2. Concerns About Device Sound Level Control Recommendations

3. Suggestion That the NHTSA Guidelines Should Recommend That All Devices Can Be Disabled

V. Statutory Considerations

Guidelines for Reducing Visual-Manual Driver Distraction During Interactions With Integrated, In-Vehicle, Electronic Devices

I. Purpose

A. Driver Responsibilities

B. Protection Against Unreasonable Risks to Safety

II. Scope

A. Guidelines Intended for Human-Machine Interfaces

B. Only Device Interfaces Covered

C. Original Equipment Electronic Devices Covered

D. Aftermarket and Portable Devices Not Covered

E. Device Tasks Performed Via Auditory-Vocal Means Not Covered

F. Intended Vehicle Types

III. Standards Included by Reference

A. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standards

B. SAE International (SAE) Standards

IV. Definitions

A. General Definitions

B. Task-Related Definitions

C. Task-Related Explanatory Material

V. Device Interface Recommendations

A. No Obstruction of View

B. Easy To See and Reach

C. Maximum Display Downward Angle

D. Lateral Position of Visual Displays

E. Minimum Size of Displayed Textual Information

F. Per Se Lock Outs

G. Acceptance Test-Based Lock Out of Tasks

H. Sound Level

I. Single-Handed Operation

J. Interruptibility

K. Device Response Time

L. Disablement

M. Distinguish Tasks or Functions Not Intended for Use While Driving

N. Device Status

VI. Task Acceptance Testing

A. Test Participant Recommendations

B. Test Participant Training Recommendations

C. Driving Simulator Recommendations

D. Recommended Driving Simulator Scenario

E. Eye Glance Measurement Using Driving Simulator Test Procedure

F. Eye Glance Characterization

G. Occlusion Testing

H. Task Performance Errors During Testing

VII. Recommendations for Passenger Operated Devices

A. Apply if Within Reach or View of Driver

B. Not for Rear Seat Devices

VIII. Driver Distraction Guidelines Interpretation Letters

A. Guideline Interpretation Letter Procedure

List of Figures

Figure 1: Risk Odds Ratios Determined by the 100-Car Study Analyses and Two Study FMCSA Analyses

Figure 2: Slide Presented by Toyota at NHTSA Technical Workshop

List of Tables

Table 1—Police Reported Crashes and Crashes Involving Distraction, 2006-2010 (GES)

Table 2—Non-Driving-Related Tasks/Devices to Which These Guidelines Apply

Table 3—Driving-Related Tasks

I. Executive Summary

A. The Problem of Driver Distraction and Related Research

The term “driver distraction,” as used in these guidelines, refers to a specific type of inattention that occurs when drivers divert their attention away from the driving task to focus on another activity. In general, distractions derive from a variety of sources including electronic devices, such as navigation systems and cell phones, as well as conventional distractions such as sights or events external to the vehicle, interacting with passengers, and eating. These distracting tasks can affect drivers in different ways, and can be categorized into the following types:

• Visual distraction: Tasks that require the driver to look away from the roadway to visually obtain information.

• Manual distraction: Tasks that require the driver to take a hand off the steering wheel and manipulate a device.

• Cognitive distraction: Tasks that require the driver to avert their mental attention away from the driving task.

Tasks can involve one, two, or all three of these distraction types.

The impact of distraction on driving is determined from multiple criteria: the type and level of distraction, the frequency and duration of task performance, and the degree of demand associated with a task. Even if performing a task results in a low level of distraction, a driver who engages in it frequently, or for long durations, may increase the crash risk to a level comparable to that of a more difficult task performed less often.

NHTSA is concerned about the effects of driver distraction on motor vehicle safety. Crash data show that 17 percent (an estimated 899,000) of all police-reported crashes involved some type of driver distraction in 2010. Of those 899,000 crashes, distraction by a device or control integral to the vehicle was reported in 26,000 crashes (3% of the distraction-related police-reported crashes).

For a number of years, NHTSA has been conducting research to better understand how driver distraction impacts driving performance and safety. This research has involved original equipment (OE) and portable devices, various task types, and both visual-manual and auditory-vocal tasks (i.e., tasks that use voice inputs and provide auditory feedback). Additionally, both NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) have sponsored analyses focused on distracted driving using data from naturalistic driving studies performed by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI).

The automobile industry and academic researchers in Europe, Japan, and the United States have all conducted valuable research that has increased the available knowledge regarding driver distraction and its effects on safety. The results of this work are summarized in various sets of guidelines that minimize the potential for driver distraction during visual-manual interactions while driving. NHTSA has drawn heavily upon these existing guidelines in the development of its visual-manual Driver Distraction Guidelines for OE in-vehicle devices.

B. NHTSA's Driver Distraction Program

In June 2012, NHTSA released a “Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving”

summarizing steps that NHTSA intends to take to eliminate crashes attributable to driver distraction. This document was an update of the “Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Driver Distraction Program”

which was released in April 2010.

“Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving,” DOT HS 811 629, June 2012. Accessed at:

http://www.distraction.gov/download/campaign-materials/8747-811629-060712-v5-Opt1-Web-tag.pdf.

“Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Driver Distraction Program,” DOT HS 811 299, April 2010. Accessed at

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/811299.pdf.

One of the steps called for in both of these documents is the development of nonbinding, voluntary guidelines for minimizing the distraction potential of in-vehicle and portable devices. These guidelines will be developed in three phases. The first phase will cover visual-manual interfaces of electronic devices installed in vehicles as original equipment. The second phase will include visual-manual interfaces of

portable and aftermarket devices. The third phase will expand these guidelines to include auditory-vocal interfaces.

C. The Visual-Manual NHTSA Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices

This notice announces the issuance of the Phase 1 NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines. The first phase covers OE in-vehicle electronic devices that are operated by the driver through visual-manual means (i.e., the driver looks at a device, manipulates a device-related control with his or her hand, and/or watches for visual feedback from the device).

To facilitate the development of these guidelines, NHTSA studied the various existing guidelines relating to driver distraction prevention and reduction and found the “Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification Procedures on Driver-Interactions with Advanced In-Vehicle Information and Communication Systems” developed by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance Guidelines

) to be the most complete and up-to-date. The Alliance Guidelines provided valuable input in current NHTSA efforts to address driver distraction issues. Although NHTSA drew heavily on that input in developing the NHTSA Guidelines, the agency identified a number of aspects that could be improved upon in order to further enhance driving safety, enhance guideline usability, improve implementation consistency, and incorporate the latest driver distraction research findings.

Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, “Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification Procedures on Driver-Interactions with Advanced In-Vehicle Information and Communication Systems,” June 26, 2006 version, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Washington, DC.

NHTSA issued an Initial Notice

proposing these Guidelines and soliciting comments on them that was published on February 24, 2012.

Notice of Proposed Federal Guidelines, Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices, 77 FR 11200 (Feb. 24, 2012).

Since light vehicles comprise the vast majority of the vehicle fleet, NHTSA focused its distraction research on this type of vehicle, instead of heavy trucks, medium trucks, motorcoaches, or motorcycles. Therefore, the NHTSA Guidelines are only applicable to light vehicles, i.e., passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks and buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of not more than 10,000 pounds. However, the NHTSA Guidelines do not cover vehicles used for emergency purposes (e.g., law enforcement). While much of what NHTSA has learned about light vehicle driver distraction undoubtedly applies to vehicle types other than light vehicles, additional work would be necessary to assess whether all aspects of the NHTSA Guidelines could be applicable to those vehicle types.

The NHTSA Guidelines are based upon a number of fundamental principles. These principles include:

• The driver's eyes should usually be looking at the road ahead,

• The driver should be able to keep at least one hand on the steering wheel while performing a secondary task (both driving-related and non-driving related),

• The distraction induced by any secondary task performed while driving should not exceed that associated with a baseline reference task (manual radio tuning),

• Any task performed by a driver should be interruptible at any time,

• The driver, not the system/device, should control the pace of task interactions, and

• Displays should be easy for the driver to see and content presented should be easily discernible.

The NHTSA Guidelines include several approaches to limit potential driver distraction associated with visual-manual tasks.

The NHTSA Guidelines list certain secondary tasks believed by the agency to interfere inherently with a driver's ability to safely control the vehicle. These include activities that are discouraged by public policy and, in some instances, prohibited by Federal regulation and State law (e.g., entering or displaying text messages), activities identified in industry driver distraction guidelines which NHTSA agrees are likely to distract drivers significantly (e.g., displaying video or automatically scrolling text), and activities that are extremely likely to be distracting due to their very purpose of attracting visual attention but whose obvious potential for distraction cannot be measured using a task timing system because the activity could continue indefinitely (displaying video or certain images). The NHTSA Guidelines refer to these activities as “per se lock outs.” The NHTSA Guidelines recommend that in-vehicle devices be designed so that they cannot be used by the driver to perform these inherently distracting activities while driving. The list of activities considered to inherently interfere with a driver's ability to safely operate the vehicle include:

• Displaying video not related to driving;

• displaying certain graphical or photographic images;

• displaying automatically scrolling text;

• manual text entry for the purpose of text-based messaging, other communication, or internet browsing; and

• displaying text for reading from books, periodical publications, Web page content, social media content, text-based advertising and marketing, or text-based messages.

These recommendations are not intended to prevent the display of images related to driving such as simple, two-dimensional map displays for the purpose of navigation and images for the purpose of aiding a driver in viewing blind areas around a vehicle, as long as they are displayed in a safe manner. These recommendations are also not intended to prevent the display of internationally standardized symbols and icons, Trademark

and Registered® symbols (such as company logos), or images intended to aid a driver in making a selection in the context of a non-driving-related task, provided that the images extinguish automatically upon completion of the task.

For all other visual-manual secondary tasks, the NHTSA Guidelines specify two test methods for measuring the impact of performing a task on driving safety and time-based acceptance criteria for assessing whether a task interferes too much with driver attention to be suitable for performance while driving. If a task does not meet the acceptance criteria, the NHTSA Guidelines recommend that OE in-vehicle devices be designed so that the task cannot be performed by the driver while driving. Both of these test methods focus on the amount of visual attention necessary to complete a task because existing research on visual-manual distraction establishes a link between visual attention (eyes off the road) and crash risk.

Although NHTSA considered other distraction metrics and alternative protocols for assessing visual-manual distraction and discussed these in the Initial Notice (e.g., driving performance metrics like lane keeping) none of these other metrics has an established link to crash risk, and, accordingly, NHTSA has not included the alternative test methods in these Guidelines.

Klauer, S.G., Dingus, T.A., Neale, V.L., Sudweeks, J.D., and Ramsey, D.J., “The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data,” DOT HS 810 594, April 2006.

The first recommended test method measures the amount of time that the

driver's eyes are drawn away from the roadway during the performance of the task. The NHTSA Guidelines recommend that devices be designed so that tasks can be completed by the driver while driving with glances away from the roadway of 2 seconds or less and a cumulative time spent glancing away from the roadway of 12 seconds or less. The second test method uses a visual occlusion technique to ensure that a driver can complete a task in a series of 1.5-second glances with a cumulative time of not more than 12 seconds.

In addition to identifying inherently distracting tasks and providing a means to measure and evaluate the level of distraction associated with other secondary tasks, the NHTSA Guidelines contain other recommendations for in-vehicle devices designed to limit and reduce their potential for distraction. Examples include a recommendation that performance of visual-manual tasks should not require the use of more than one hand, a recommendation that each device's active display be located as close as practicable to the driver's forward line of sight, and a recommendation of a maximum downward viewing angle to the geometric center of each display.

The NHTSA Guidelines cover any OE electronic device that the driver can easily see and/or reach, even if intended for use solely by passengers. However, the NHTSA Guidelines do not cover any device that is located fully behind the front seat of the vehicle or any front-seat device that cannot readily be reached or seen by the driver.

NHTSA has opted to pursue nonbinding, voluntary guidelines rather than a mandatory Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). NHTSA explained in the Initial Notice that voluntary guidelines are appropriate at this time because of the need for additional research on distraction and its effects on driving and because of the rapid pace of technology changes in the area of in-vehicle electronic devices. The agency also noted concerns with the sufficiency of existing data to estimate the benefits of an in-vehicle electronic device regulation and that driver distraction testing involves drivers with inherent individual differences. These individual differences present new challenges to NHTSA in terms of developing repeatable, objective test procedures to determine conformance. After carefully considering all of the comments, NHTSA continues to believe that voluntary guidelines are the appropriate action to take at this time in order to reduce the potential for driver distraction.

Since these voluntary NHTSA Guidelines are not a FMVSS, NHTSA's normal enforcement procedures are not applicable. As part of its continuing research effort on distracted driving, NHTSA does intend to monitor manufacturers' voluntary adoption of these NHTSA Guidelines.

Major Differences Between the Proposed and Final Phase 1 NHTSA Guidelines

NHTSA received comments from a total of 83 entities in response to its Initial Notice proposing Phase 1 of its Driver Distraction Guidelines. In response to the comments received, NHTSA has made numerous changes, both substantive and editorial, to its Guidelines. The more substantial changes include:

• Clarification that the NHTSA Guidelines apply both to some driving-related secondary tasks and to all non-driving-related secondary tasks performed using an original equipment electronic system or device.

• The NHTSA Guidelines are not applicable to any vehicle that is manufactured primarily for one of the following uses: ambulance, firefighting, law enforcement, military, or other emergency uses.

• Numerous changes have been made to the recommended per se lock outs.

○ The character-based limit for manual text entry has been replaced by a recommendation against any amount of manual text entry by the driver for the purpose of text-based messaging, other communication, or internet browsing.

○ The character-based limit for displaying text to be read has been replaced by a recommendation against displaying any amount of text for reading from books, periodical publications, Web page content, social media content, text-based advertising and marketing, or text-based messages. The display of limited amounts of other types of text during a testable task is acceptable with the maximum amount of text that should be displayed during a single task determined by the task acceptance tests.

○ The statement is explicitly made that the display of dynamic and static maps and/or location information in a two-dimensional format, with or without perspective, for the purpose of providing navigational information or driving directions when requested by the driver is acceptable. However, the display of informational detail not critical to navigation, such as photorealistic images, satellite images, or three-dimensional images is not recommended.

○ The language for the per se lock out of display of graphical and photographic images has been revised to permit images displayed for the purpose of aiding a driver to efficiently make a selection in the context of a non-driving-related task if the image automatically extinguishes from the display upon completion of the task.

○ A recommendation has been added that the display of visual images of the area directly behind a vehicle intended to aid a driver in performing a maneuver in which the vehicle's transmission is in reverse gear (including hitching a trailer) is acceptable, subject to certain conditions.

• A recommendation has been added that every electronic device not essential to the driving task or the safe operation of the vehicle should provide a means by which the device can be turned off or otherwise disabled.

• Task acceptance tests except for Eye Glance Measurement Using a Driving Simulator and Occlusion Testing have been removed from the Guidelines.

• The method for determining the maximum display downward angle has been amended to allow any of the following versions of SAE J941 to be used to determine the driver's eye point: SAE J941 (June 1992), SAE J941 (June 1997), SAE J941 (September 2002), SAE J941 (October 2008), or SAE J941 (March 2010).

• Several definitions have been added and numerous ones modified to improve the clarity of the Guidelines.

• The device response time recommendation has been modified to better match the Alliance Guidelines' recommendation.

• Numerous changes to the driving simulator recommendations and recommended driving simulator scenario used for one of the task acceptance test protocols were made in response to comments.

• In response to comments and NHTSA's recent research indicating that the relationship between the total eyes off road time (TEORT) to complete a task and the total shutter open time (TSOT) to complete a task using the visual occlusion technique is near 1:1, the acceptance criteria have been amended. The TSOT criterion has been changed from 9 seconds to 12 seconds so that it is consistent with the 12-second TEORT criterion.

• The recommendations for acceptance test participant selection criteria have been revised to reflect that participants need only drive a minimum of 3,000 miles per year and do not

necessarily need to be comfortable communicating via text messages.

In response to comments, NHTSA has also addressed issues raised by commenters including:

• NHTSA intends to issue its Phase 2 Driver Distraction Guidelines as soon as feasible. The Phase 2 Guidelines will be based on general principles similar to those upon which these Phase 1 Guidelines are based. These principles are:

• The driver's eyes should usually be looking at the road ahead,

• The driver should be able to keep at least one hand on the steering wheel,

• Any task performed by driving should be interruptible at any time,

• The driver should control the human-machine interface and not vice versa, and

• Displays should be easy for the driver to see.

Until such time as the Phase 2 Guidelines are issued, the agency recommends that developers and manufacturers of portable and aftermarket devices consider these principles as they design and update their products. NHTSA further encourages these developers and manufacturers to adopt any recommendations in the Phase 1 Guidelines that they believe are feasible and appropriate for their devices. However, NHTSA understands that implementation of some recommendations may require development of a means to distinguish whether the driver or front-seat passenger is performing a task.

• NHTSA intends to issue Driver Distraction Guidelines (Phase 3) for auditory-vocal human-machine interfaces as soon as possible after the necessary research has been completed.

• NHTSA will also continue to collect information on driver distraction and to conduct research, and NHTSA's Guidelines will be updated as needed in response to new information. NHTSA will also clarify the meaning of its Guidelines in response to questions that are asked through the issuance of Guideline Interpretation letters and has described the procedure for obtaining these letters.

• Since these voluntary proposed NHTSA Guidelines are not a FMVSS, NHTSA's normal enforcement procedures are not applicable. NHTSA Vehicle Safety Research will perform future monitoring to assess which vehicle make/models conform to these Phase 1 Guidelines.

• NHTSA believes that it is feasible for manufacturers to make the necessary changes to implement these Guidelines for existing vehicle models that undergo major revisions beginning three or more years from today's date. This three-year time frame is an increase from the two-year time frame stated in the Initial Notice because the agency recognizes that instrument panel and console design changes occur early in the revision cycle and these systems may already have been designed for vehicles undergoing revisions in two years. Likewise, NHTSA believes it should be feasible for new vehicle models entering the market in three or more years (again, an increase from the two or more years stated in the Initial Notice) from today's date to meet the NHTSA Guidelines. For existing vehicle models that do not undergo major revisions, NHTSA is not suggesting that the recommendations of these Guidelines would be met.

NHTSA expects the main effect from these Guidelines to be better-designed OE in-vehicle electronic device human-machine interfaces that do not create an unreasonable level of driver distraction when used by a driver to perform visual-manual secondary tasks. While voluntary and nonbinding, the NHTSA Guidelines are meant to discourage the introduction of both inherently distracting secondary tasks and tasks that do not meet the acceptance criteria when tested using the test methods contained in the Guidelines.

II. Background

A. Acronyms Used in Document

AAM Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

Alliance Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

BM Benchmark

CAMP Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership

CD Compact Disc

CDS Crashworthiness Data System

CU Consumers Union

DFD Dynamic Following and Detection

DFT Driver Focus-Telematics

DRL Daytime Running Lights

DOT Department of Transportation

DS-BM Driving Test Protocol

DS-FC Driving Test Protocol with Fixed Acceptance Criteria

DVI Driver-Vehicle Interface

DWM Driver Workload Metric

EGDS Eye Glance Testing Using a Driving Simulator

EO Executive Order

EORT Eyes-Off-Road Time

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

FMCSR Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation

FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

FR Federal Register

GES General Estimates System (NASS-GES)

GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

HMI Human-Machine Interface

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

ISO International Organization for Standardization

JAMA Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association

KLM Keystroke, Level Model

LCT Lane Change Test

MAP-21 Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement Act of 2012

MEMA Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association

MGD Mean Glance Duration

mph Miles per hour

NADS National Advanced Driving Simulator

NAFA National Association of Fleet Administrators

NASS National Automotive Sampling System

NCAP New Car Assessment Program

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NMVCCS National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey

NSC National Safety Council

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

OE Original Equipment

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

PAD Portable or Aftermarket Device

PDT Peripheral Detection Task

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

SHRP2 Strategic Highway Research Program 2

SUV Sport Utility Vehicle

TEORT Total Eyes-Off-Road Time

TGT Total Glance Time to Task

TLC Time to Line Crossing

TSOT Total Shutter Open Time

VRTC Vehicle Research and Test Center

VTI Swedish National Road and Transport Institute

VTTI Virginia Tech Transportation Institute

B. The Driver Distraction Safety Problem

The term “driver distraction,” as used in this notice, is a specific type of inattention that occurs when drivers divert their attention away from the driving task to focus on another activity. These distractions can come from electronic devices, such as navigation systems and cell phones, more conventional activities such as sights or events external to the vehicle, interacting with passengers, and/or eating. These distracting tasks can affect drivers in different ways, and can be categorized into the following types:

• Visual distraction: Tasks that require the driver to look away from the roadway to visually obtain information;

• Manual distraction: Tasks that require the driver to take one or both

hands off the steering wheel to manipulate a control, device, or other non-driving-related item;

• Cognitive distraction: Tasks that require the driver to avert their mental attention away from the driving task.

Tasks can involve one, two, or all three of these distraction types.

The impact of distraction on driving is determined from multiple criteria; the type and level of distraction, the frequency and duration of task performance, and the degree of demand associated with a task. Even if performing a task results in a low level of distraction, a driver who engages in it frequently, or for long durations, may increase the crash risk to a level comparable to that of a more difficult task performed less often.

Hundreds of studies have been conducted on the topic of driver distraction over the past several decades, starting as early as the 1960s. The recent edited book by Regan, Lee, and Young (2009)

provides a comprehensive treatment of the range of issues relating to distraction, including theoretical foundations, crash risk, effects on driver performance, exposure, measurement methods, and mitigation strategies. A sample of these papers may be found at

www.distraction.gov.

NHTSA recognizes this large body of research and the important contributions it makes to better understanding the impacts of distraction on crash risk and driving performance. However, because NHTSA is an agency driven first and foremost by the goal of reducing the frequency and severity of crashes, the agency's focus has been on research and test procedures that measure aspects of driver performance that have the strongest connection to crash risk. Accordingly, the research noted below provides a brief overview of the distraction safety problem as manifested in crashes and the relationship between distraction and crash risk.

Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D., & Young, K. (Eds.), Driver distraction: Theory, effects, and mitigation, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press (2009).

NHTSA data on distracted driving-related crashes and the resulting numbers of injured people and fatalities is derived from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)

and the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES).

FARS is a census of all fatal crashes that occur on the roadways of the United States of America. It contains data on all fatal crashes occurring in all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

NASS GES contains data from a nationally-representative sample of police-reported crashes. It contains data on police-reported crashes of all levels of severity, including those that result in fatalities, injuries, or only property damage. National numbers of crashes calculated from NASS GES are estimates.

The most recent data available, 2010 data, show that 899,000 motor vehicle crashes involved a report of a distracted driver (17 percent of all police-reported crashes: fatal, injury-only, and property-damage-only). As seen in Table 1, the percentage of all police-reported crashes that involve distraction has remained consistent over the past five years. On average, these distraction-related crashes lead to thousands of fatalities (3,092 fatalities or 9.4 percent of those killed in 2010) and injuries to over 400,000 people each year (approximately 17 percent of annual injuries).

Table 1—Police Reported Crashes and Crashes Involving Distraction,

2006-2010 (GES)

Year

Number of

Police-Reported

Crashes

Police-Reported Crashes Involving a Distracted Driver

Police-Reported Crashes Involving a Distracted

Driver Using

an Integrated

Control/Device *

Police-Reported Crashes Involving a Distracted Driver Using an

Electronic Device *

2006

5,964,000

1,019,000 (17%)

18,000 (2%)

24,000 (2%)

2007

6,016,000

1,001,000 (17%)

23,000 (2%)

48,000 (5%)

2008

5,801,000

967,000 (17%)

21,000 (2%)

48,000 (5%)

2009

5,498,000

957,000 (17%)

22,000 (2%)

46,000 (5%)

2010

5,409,000

899,000 (17%)

26,000 (3%)

47,000 (5%)

* The categories for Integrated Control/Device and Electronic Device are not mutually exclusive. Therefore the data

cannot

be added or combined in any manner.

Of the 899,000 distraction-related crashes, 26,000 (3%) specifically stated that the driver was distracted while adjusting or using an integrated device/control. From a different viewpoint, of those 899,000 crashes, 47,000 (5%) specifically stated that the driver was distracted by a cell phone (no differentiation between portable and integrated cell phones). It should be noted that these two classifications are not mutually exclusive, as a driver distracted by the integrated device/control may have also been on the phone at the time of the crash and thus the crash may appear in both categories. While all electronic devices are of interest, the current coding of the crash data does not differentiate between electronic devices other than cell phones.

Identification of specific driver activities and behaviors that serve as the distraction has presented challenges, both within NHTSA's data collection and on police accident reports. Therefore, a large portion of the crashes that are reported to involve distraction do not have a specific behavior or activity listed; rather they specify

other distraction

distraction unknown.

One could reasonably assume that some portion of those crashes involve a portable, aftermarket, or original equipment electronic device. This would increase the numbers and percentages of distraction-related crashes involving integrated controls/devices or electronic devices (columns four and five of Table 1).

1. Estimation of Distraction Crash Risk Via Naturalistic Driving Studies

One approach to estimating the driving risks due to various types of distraction is naturalistic driving studies. As noted earlier, NHTSA's focus in developing these visual-manual guidelines has been on data and measures that most closely link to crash risk. Naturalistic data collection is currently the best method available for determining the crash risks associated with distracted driving because it combines two key data sources for estimating crash risk: Crash data and direct observation of drivers to link

actual behaviors to consequent crashes and near-crashes. No other method can establish the direct association of distracting behaviors while driving under real-world, non-contrived conditions and crash risk. In naturalistic driving studies, drivers are observed in their natural environment, and, therefore, they are free to drive where they wish. Unlike commanded task testing (e.g., simulator and test-track studies), in which an experimenter instructs a test participant when to perform a task, test participants perform tasks at will in naturalistic studies. Test participants volunteer to drive a vehicle, their own or one provided to them, fitted with unobtrusive data recording instrumentation to record their driving behavior. Drivers can be observed in this manner for long periods of time, only limited by the amount of data storage available in the data recording system and the capacity of the researchers to handle the potentially large volumes of data collected. Naturalistic driving research is labor intensive to conduct. It is also lengthy in duration if crash or near-crash events are of interest, since these events are relatively rare.

For light vehicles, the NHTSA-sponsored 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study,

9 10 11 12 13

performed by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI), provided information about the effects of performing various types of secondary tasks on crash/near crash risks. Secondary tasks include communication, entertainment, informational, passenger interaction, navigation, and reaching (e.g., for an object) tasks (along with many others). For the 100-Car Study, VTTI collected naturalistic driving data for 100 vehicles from January 2003 through July 2004. Each participant's vehicle was equipped with a data acquisition system including five small video cameras and sensors to measure numerous vehicle state and kinematic variables at each instant of time. The vehicles were then driven by their owners during their normal daily activities for 12 to 13 months while data were recorded. No special instructions were given to drivers as to when or where to drive and no experimenter was present in the vehicle during the driving. All of this resulted in a large data set of naturalistic driving data that contains information on 241 drivers (100 primary drivers who performed most of the driving and 141 secondary drivers who drove the instrumented vehicles for shorter periods of time) driving for almost 43,000 hours and traveling approximately 2 million miles.

Neale, V. L., Dingus, T. A., Klauer, S.G., Sudweeks, J., and Goodman, M., “An Overview of the 100-Car Naturalistic Study and Findings,” ESV Paper 05-0400, June 2005.

Dingus, T. A., Klauer, S.G., Neale, V. L., Petersen, A., Lee, S. E., Sudweeks, J., Perez, M. A., Hankey, J., Ramsey, D., Gupta, S., Bucher, C., Doerzaph, Z. R., Jermeland, J., and Knipling, R.R., “The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II—Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment,” DOT HS 810 593, April 2006.

Guo, F., Klauer, S.G., McGill, M.T., and Dingus, T.A., “Task 3—Evaluating the Relationship Between Near-Crashes and Crashes: Can Near-Crashes Serve as a Surrogate Safety Metric for Crashes?” DOT HS 811 382, September 2010.

Klauer, S.G., Guo, F., Sudweeks, J.D., and Dingus, T.A., “An Analysis of Driver Inattention Using a Case-Crossover Approach On 100-Car Data: Final Report,” DOT HS 811 334, May 2010.

Data from the 100-Car Study provides the best information currently available about the risks associated with performing a variety of secondary tasks while driving light vehicles (vehicles under 10,000 pounds GVWR). While this was a large, difficult, and expensive study to perform, it was small from an epidemiological viewpoint (100 primary drivers, 15 police-reported, and 82 total crashes, including minor collisions). Drivers from only one small portion of the country, the Northern Virginia-Washington, DC, metro area, were represented.

The 100-Car Study was deliberately designed to maximize the number of crash and near-crash events through the selection of participants with higher than average crash or near-crash risk exposure.

This was accomplished by selecting a larger sample of drivers below the age of 25 and by including a sample that drove more than the average number of miles.

Neale, V.L., Dingus, T.A., Klauer, S.G., Sudweeks, J., and Goodman, M., “An Overview of the 100-Car Naturalistic Study and Findings,” ESV Paper 05-0400, June 2005.

Due to the rapid pace of technological change, some devices (e.g., smart phones) and secondary tasks of great current interest (e.g., text messaging) were not addressed by 100-Car Study data because they were not widely in use at the time.

Subsequent to the 100-Car Study, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) sponsored an analysis of naturalistic driving data

to examine the effects of driver distraction on safety for commercial motor vehicles (three or more axle trucks, tractors-semitrailers (including tankers), transit buses, and motor coaches). This analysis used data collected during two commercial motor vehicle naturalistic driving studies. Since the data analyzed was collected during two studies, this study will, hereinafter, be referred to as the “Two Study FMCSA Analyses.”

Olson, R.L., Hanowski, R.J., Hickman, J.S., and Bocanegra, J., “Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations,” FMCSA-RRR-09-042, September 2009.

The Two Study FMCSA Analyses combined and analyzed data from two large-scale commercial motor vehicle naturalistic driving studies: the Drowsy Driver Warning System Field Operational Test

and the Naturalistic Truck Driving Study.

The combined database contains naturalistic driving data for 203 commercial motor vehicle drivers, 7 trucking fleets, 16 fleet locations, and approximately 3 million miles of continuously-collected kinematic and video data collected over a period of three years (May 2004 through May 2007). This data set was filtered using kinematic data thresholds, along with video review and validation, to find safety-critical events (defined in this report as crashes, near-crashes, crash-relevant conflicts, and unintentional lane deviations). There were a total of 4,452 safety-critical events in the database: 21 crashes, 197 near-crashes, 3,019 crash-relevant conflicts, and 1,215 unintentional lane deviations. In addition, 19,888 time segments of baseline driving data were randomly selected for analysis.

Hanowski, R.J., Blanco, M., Nakata, A., Hickman, J.S., Schaudt, W.A., Fumero, M.C., Olson, R.L., Jermeland, J., Greening, M., Holbrook, G.T., Knipling, R.R., and Madison, P., “The Drowsy Driver Warning System Field Operational Test, Data Collection Methods,” DOT HS 811 035, September 2008.

Blanco, M., Hickman, J.S., Olson, R.L., Bocanegra, J.L., Hanowski, R.J., Nakata, A., Greening, M., Madison, P., Holbrook, G.T., and Bowman, D., “Investigating Critical Incidents, Driver Restart Period, Sleep Quantity, and Crash Countermeasures in Commercial Vehicle Operations Using Naturalistic Data Collection,” in press, 2008.

One major source of differences in the results obtained from analyses of the 100-Car Study with those obtained from the Two Study FMCSA Analyses is the different time frames in which their data collections were performed. The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study data collection was from January 2003 through July 2004. The Drowsy Driver Warning System Field Operational Test collected data from May 2004 through September 2005 and the Naturalistic Truck Driving Study collected data from November 2005 through May 2007. Due to the rapid changes occurring in consumer electronics, the specific types of electronic device related distraction observed across studies, while similar, were not identical. For example, while the Two Study FMCSA Analyses found a high safety critical event risk due to

drivers engaging in text messaging, there was no text messaging observed during the 100-Car Study. This is because the widespread popularity of text messaging did not occur until after the 100-Car Study data collection was completed.

Other sources of differences between the results obtained from analyses of the 100-Car Study and those obtained from the Two Study FMCSA Analyses are that one of the heavy truck studies (the Drowsy Driver Warning System Field Operational Test) covered sample situations likely to produce drowsiness (e.g., long nighttime drives in uneventful conditions). In addition, both truck studies involved work situations.

2. Summary of Naturalistic Driving Study Distraction Risk Analyses

Figure 1 gives a graphical representation of some of the secondary task risk odds ratios determined from the 100-Car Study and the Two Study FMCSA Analyses. In this figure, a risk odds ratio of 1.00 (shown as “1” in the figure) equates to the risks associated with typical undistracted driving. Risk odds ratios above 1.00 indicate secondary tasks that increase driving risks while risk odds ratios below 1.00 indicate protective effects (i.e., performing these secondary tasks makes a crash or near-crash event less likely to occur than driving and not performing any secondary task.) This figure provides a quick, visual summary of the risks associated with performing a variety of secondary tasks while driving both light and heavy vehicles.

EN26AP13.000

The various naturalistic data study analyses established several important points about driver distraction which are directly relevant to the NHTSA Guidelines for reducing driver distraction due to device interface design:

• Secondary task performance is common while driving. They were observed during the majority (54%) of the randomly selected baseline time segments analyzed during the 100-Car Study analyses. Some secondary task performance involves the use of electronic devices; these secondary tasks are the primary focus of this document.

• Secondary task performance while driving has a broad range of risk odds ratios associated with different secondary tasks. The observed risk odds ratios range from 23.2, indicating a very large increase in crash/near-crash risk to 0.4 indicating a large protective effect. Again, a risk ratio of 1.0 means that a secondary task has the same risk as average driving; a risk ratio of 23.2 means that risk associated with performance of this secondary task is increased by 2,220 percent compared to average driving. Any value less than 1.0 indicates a situation with less risk than average driving, indicating a protective effect; a risk ratio of 0.4 means that risk associated with performance of this secondary task is reduced by 60 percent compared to average driving. This indicates that it may be possible to improve at least some secondary tasks with high risk odds ratios (i.e., risky tasks) so as to make them substantially safer to perform. The logical place to reduce crash/near-crash risk odds ratios for these secondary tasks is through improvements to their driver interface.

• Naturalistic driving research shows that the secondary tasks with the highest risk odds ratios have primarily visual-manual interactions with a relatively small cognitive component. While, every secondary task results in some cognitive load, some tasks that

may not require a lot of thought, such as Reaching for a Moving Object, are towards the right side of Figure 1. The secondary tasks “Interacting with Passenger” and “Talking/Listening on Hands-Free Phone” create a low visual-manual load for the driver. Both of these secondary tasks have risk odds ratios that are statistically significantly less than 1.00 (at the 95 percent confidence level). These two secondary tasks appear to have protective effects.

Since primarily visual-manual secondary tasks have the highest risk odds ratios, and because measurement of cognitive distraction needs further research, the NHTSA Guidelines will initially only apply to the visual-manual aspects of devices' driver interfaces. Phase 3 of these NHTSA Guidelines will cover the auditory-vocal portions of device interfaces.

• Long (greater than 2.0 seconds) glances by the driver away from the forward road scene are correlated with increased crash/near-crash risk. When drivers glance away from the forward roadway for greater than 2.0 seconds out of a 6-second period, their risk of an unsafe event substantially increases relative to the baseline.

NHTSA's Comprehensive Response to Driver Distraction

NHTSA's safety mission is to “save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes.” One focus of this mission is to prevent road traffic crashes for which driver distraction is a contributing factor.

Information on NHTSA's efforts to address this problem can be found at

http://www.distraction.gov/.

In June 2012, NHTSA released a “Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving.”

This is an update of the “Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Driver Distraction Program,”

which was released in April 2010. These two documents summarize NHTSA's planned steps to “help in its long-term goal of eliminating a specific category of crashes—those attributable to driver distraction.”

NHTSA's work to eliminate driver distraction-related crashes consists of four main initiatives:

“Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving,” DOT HS 811 629, June 2012. Accessed at:

http://www.distraction.gov/download/campaign-materials/8747-811629-060712-v5-Opt1-Web-tag.pdf.

“Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Driver Distraction Program,” DOT HS 811 299, April 2010. Accessed at

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/811299.pdf.

Ibid.

1. Improve the understanding of the extent and nature of the distraction problem. This includes improving the quality of data NHTSA collects about distraction-related crashes and improving analysis techniques.

2. Reduce the driver workload associated with performing tasks using original equipment, aftermarket, and portable in-vehicle electronic devices by working to limit the visual, manual, and cognitive demand associated with secondary tasks performed using these devices. Better device interfaces will minimize the time and effort involved in a driver performing a task using the device. Minimizing the workload associated with performing secondary tasks with a device will permit drivers to maximize the attention they focus toward the primary task of driving.

3. Keep drivers safe through the introduction of crash avoidance technologies. These include the use of crash warning systems to re-focus the attention of distracted drivers as well as vehicle-initiated (i.e., automatic) braking and steering to prevent or mitigate distracted driver crashes. Research

22 23 24 25

on how to best warn distracted drivers in crash imminent situations is also supporting this initiative. NHTSA is also performing a large amount of research on forward collision avoidance and mitigation technologies such as Forward Collision Warning, Collision Imminent Braking, and Dynamic Brake Assist.

Lerner, N., Jenness, J., Robinson, E., Brown, T., Baldwin, C., and Llaneras, R., “Crash Warning Interface Metrics: Final Report,” DOT HS 811 470a, August, 2011.

Robinson, E., Lerner, N., Jenness, J., Singer, J., Huey, R., Baldwin, C., Kidd, D., Roberts, D., and Monk, C., “Crash Warning Interface Metrics: Task 3 Final Report: Empirical Studies of Effects of DVI Variability” DOT HS 811 470b, August, 2011.

Robinson, E., Lerner, N., Jenness, J., Singer, J., Huey, R., Baldwin, C., Kidd, D., Roberts, D., and Monk, C., “Crash Warning Interface Metrics: Task 3 Report Appendices” DOT HS 811 470c, August, 2011.

Forkenbrock, G., Snyder, A., Heitz, M., Hoover, R.L., O'Harra, B., Vasko, S., and Smith, L., “A Test Track Protocol for Assessing Forward Collision Warning Driver-Vehicle Interface Effectiveness,” DOT HS 811 501, July 2011.

4. Educate drivers about the risks and consequences of distracted driving. This includes targeted media messages, drafting and publishing sample text-messaging laws for consideration and possible use by the states, and publishing guidance for a ban on text messaging by Federal government employees while driving.

This notice is part of NHTSA's effort to address the second of these initiatives, reducing driver workload by working to limit the visual and manual demand associated with in-vehicle electronic device interface designs. As discussed in NHTSA's Driver Distraction Program, NHTSA's intent is to “

develop voluntary guidelines for minimizing the distraction potential of in-vehicle and portable devices.

”

The current notice contains voluntary NHTSA Guidelines only for OE in-vehicle electronic devices; portable and aftermarket electronic devices will be addressed by Phase 2 of the NHTSA Guidelines.

“Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Driver Distraction Program,” DOT HS 811 299, April 2010. Available at

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/811299.pdf,

P. 21.

Drivers perform primary tasks to directly control the vehicle (e.g., turning the steering wheel, pressing on the accelerator and throttle pedal, and others). Primary tasks include all vehicle control tasks necessary for safe driving.

Drivers may also perform secondary tasks. Secondary tasks are performed for purposes other than direct control of the vehicle (e.g., communications, entertainment, informational, and navigation tasks among others).

Drivers may perform secondary tasks using an in-vehicle electronic device. If they do, they interact with the electronic device through its driver interface. These interfaces can be designed to accommodate interactions that are visual-manual (visual display and manual controls), auditory-vocal, or a combination of the two. Some devices may allow a driver to perform a task through either manual control manipulation with visual feedback, or through voice command with auditory feedback to the driver.

For the purposes of this document, a driver's interactions with device interfaces are described by two functional categories based on the mode of interaction: visual-manual and auditory-vocal. Visual-manual interactions involve the driver looking at a device, making inputs to the device by hand (e.g., pressing a button, rotating a knob), and/or the device providing visual feedback being provided to the driver. Auditory-vocal interactions involve the driver controlling the device functions through voice commands and receiving auditory feedback from the device. A single interface may accommodate both visual-manual and auditory-vocal interactions.

These voluntary NHTSA Guidelines apply to in-vehicle OE electronic device tasks performed by the driver through visual-manual means. The goal of these Guidelines is to discourage the implementation of tasks performed using in-vehicle electronic devices

unless the tasks and driver interfaces are designed to minimize driver workload when performing the tasks while driving. These Guidelines specify criteria and acceptance test protocols for assessing whether a secondary task performed using an in-vehicle electronic device may be suitable for performance while driving, due to its minimal impact on driving performance and, therefore, safety. These Guidelines also identify secondary tasks that interfere with a driver's ability to safely control the vehicle and to categorize those tasks as being unsuitable for performance by the driver while driving.

III. The February 2012 Proposed NHTSA Guidelines and Comments

A. The Initial Notice Proposing the NHTSA Guidelines

On February 24, 2012, NHTSA published in the

Federal Register

an Initial Notice proposing the first phase of its voluntary Driver Distraction Guidelines. The first phase covers electronic devices installed in vehicles as original equipment (OE) that are operated by the driver through visual-manual means (i.e., the driver looks at a device, manipulates a device-related control with his or her hand, and/or watches for visual feedback). Because the driver distraction crash statistics discussed above showed that the types of secondary tasks correlated with the highest crash/near crash risk odds ratios primarily had visual-manual means of interaction, this first phase of guidelines focuses on visual-manual interfaces.

“Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices, Notice of Proposed Federal Guidelines.” 77 FR 11200 (February 24, 2012).

The goal of the Phase 1 NHTSA Guidelines is to limit potential driver distraction associated with secondary visual-manual tasks (e.g., information, navigation, communications, and entertainment) performed using OE electronic devices. In drafting the proposed NHTSA Guidelines, the agency excluded primary driving controls and displays (e.g., instrument gauges, or telltales) from the scope of the proposed NHTSA Guidelines because operating these systems is part of the primary driving task. However, NHTSA does believe that controls and displays for primary driving tasks should be designed for efficient performance of tasks and to minimize distraction. Likewise, the agency excluded collision warning or vehicle control systems designed to aid the driver in controlling the vehicle and avoiding crashes. These systems are meant to capture the driver's attention. Finally, the agency excluded heating-ventilation-air conditioning (HVAC) adjustment tasks performed through dedicated HVAC controls from the scope of the proposed NHTSA Guidelines, but notes that efficient design of such controls and displays is recommended to minimize distraction.

In developing its proposed guidelines, NHTSA studied various existing guidelines relating to driver distraction prevention and reduction and found the “Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification Procedures on Driver-Interactions with Advanced In-Vehicle Information and Communication Systems” developed by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance Guidelines

) to be the most complete and up-to-date. The Alliance Guidelines provided valuable input in current NHTSA efforts to address driver distraction issues. While NHTSA drew heavily on that input in developing the proposed NHTSA Guidelines, it incorporated a number of changes to further enhance driving safety, enhance guideline usability, improve implementation consistency, and incorporate the latest driver distraction research findings.

NHTSA focused its distraction research on light vehicles because they comprise the vast majority of the vehicle fleet, instead of heavy trucks, medium trucks, motorcoaches, or motorcycles. On this basis, the agency proposed to limit the NHTSA Guidelines to light vehicles, i.e., all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks and buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of not more than 10,000 pounds. While much of what NHTSA has learned about light vehicle driver distraction may apply to other vehicle types, additional research is necessary to assess whether all aspects of the NHTSA Guidelines apply to those vehicle types.

The proposed NHTSA Guidelines were based upon a limited number of fundamental principles. These principles include:

• The driver's eyes should usually be looking at the road ahead,

• The driver should be able to keep at least one hand on the steering wheel while performing a secondary task (both driving-related and non-driving related),

• The distraction induced by any secondary task performed while driving should not exceed that associated with a baseline reference task (manual radio tuning),

• Any task performed by a driver should be interruptible at any time,

• The driver should control the pace of task interactions, not the system/device, and

• Displays should be easy for the driver to see and content presented should be easily discernible.

The proposed NHTSA Guidelines listed certain secondary tasks believed by the agency to interfere inherently with a driver's ability to safely control the vehicle. The proposed NHTSA Guidelines referred to these as tasks as “per se lock outs.” The proposed NHTSA Guidelines recommended that in-vehicle devices be designed so that they could not be used by the driver to perform such tasks while driving. The list of tasks considered to inherently interfere with a driver's ability to safely operate the vehicle included: displaying images or video not related to driving; displaying automatically scrolling text; manual text entry of more than six button or key presses during a single task; or reading more than 30 characters of text (not counting punctuation marks) during a single task. The proposed NHTSA Guidelines specified that these recommendations were intended to prevent the driver from engaging in tasks such as watching video footage, visual-manual text messaging, visual-manual internet browsing, or visual-manual social media browsing while driving. These recommendations were not intended to prevent the safe display of images related to driving, such as images depicting the blind area behind a vehicle.

For all other secondary visual-manual tasks, the proposed NHTSA Guidelines recommended multiple task acceptance test methods that could be used for measuring the impact of performing a task on driving safety. Acceptance criteria were proposed to assess whether a task interferes too much with driver attention to be suitable for performance while driving. If a task does not meet the acceptance criteria, the proposed NHTSA Guidelines recommended that OE in-vehicle devices be designed so that the task could not be performed by the driver while driving.

The proposed Guidelines included two test methods preferred by NHTSA for use in assessing whether a task interferes too much with driver attention. One method measured the amount of time that the driver's eyes are drawn away from the roadway during the performance of the task. Research shows that the driver looking away from the roadway is correlated with an increased risk of a crash or near-crash.

The proposed NHTSA Guidelines recommended that devices be designed so that tasks could be completed by the driver while driving with: A mean eye glance duration away from the roadway of 2 seconds or less; 85 percent of eye glance durations away from the roadway being 2 seconds or less; and a cumulative time spent glancing away from the roadway of 12 seconds or less. The second proposed test method used a visual occlusion technique to ensure that a driver could complete a task in a series of 1.5-second glances with a cumulative time spent glancing away from the roadway of not more than 9 seconds.

In addition to identifying substantially distracting tasks and providing a means for measuring and evaluating the level of distraction associated with other visual-manual secondary tasks, the proposed NHTSA Guidelines contained other interface recommendations for in-vehicle electronic devices to minimize their potential for distraction. For example, the proposed NHTSA Guidelines recommended that all device functions designed to be performed by the driver through visual-manual means should require no more than one of the driver's hands to operate. Another example was the recommendation that each device's active display should be located as close as practicable to the driver's forward line of sight and included a specific recommendation for the maximum downward viewing angle to the geometric center of each display.

The agency proposed that the NHTSA Guidelines would cover any OE electronic device that the driver could easily see and/or reach (even if intended for use solely by passengers). However, the agency proposed to limit the applicability of the NHTSA Guidelines by excluding any device located fully behind the front seat of the vehicle or any front-seat device that cannot reasonably be reached or seen by the driver.

NHTSA stated in the Initial Notice that it had opted to pursue nonbinding, voluntary guidelines rather than a mandatory Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). NHTSA explained that voluntary guidelines are appropriate at this time because additional research is needed on distraction and its effect on driving and because of the rapid pace of technology changes in the area of in-vehicle electronic devices. The agency also noted concerns with the sufficiency of existing data to estimate the benefits of an in-vehicle electronic device regulation and that driver distraction testing involves drivers with inherent individual differences. These individual differences present new challenges to NHTSA in terms of developing repeatable, objective test procedures to determine conformance.

In the Initial Notice, NHTSA sought comment on how to revise the proposed NHTSA Guidelines to improve motor vehicle safety. Because these Guidelines are voluntary and nonbinding, they will not require action of any kind, and for that reason they will not confer benefits or impose costs. Nonetheless, and as part of its continuing research efforts, NHTSA sought comments on the potential benefits and costs that would result from voluntary conformance with the draft Guidelines.

Much of the remainder of this notice analyzes and responds to comments that NHTSA received on the Initial Notice. The following subsection gives an overall summary of the comments that were received. The next section of this notice contains a detailed, issue-by-issue analysis and response to the comments on the Initial Notice.

Summary of Comments on the Proposed NHTSA Guidelines

NHTSA received comments from a total of 83 entities in response to its Initial Notice proposing Phase 1 of its Driver Distraction Guidelines. These comments came from government entities, industry associations, automotive and equipment manufacturers, consumer and safety advocacy organizations, university and research organizations, and individuals. A number of entities submitted more than one set of comments.

Government entities providing comments were:

• The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and

• The Texas Department of Transportation.

Industry associations submitting comments were:

• The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance),

• American Insurance Association,

• Connected Vehicle Trade Association,

• The German Association of the Automotive Industry,

• Global Automakers, and

• The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA).

Vehicle manufacturers submitting comments were:

• American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,

• BMW of North America, LLC,

• Chrysler Group LLC,

• Ford Motor Company,

• General Motors LLC (GM),

• Hyundai Motor Group,

• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,

• Nissan North America, Inc.,

• Toyota Motor North America, Inc.,

• Volkswagen Group of America,

• Volvo Car Corporation, and

• Volvo Group.

Aftermarket product manufacturers were:

• Applikompt Applied Computer Technologies Inc.,

• Agero, Inc.,

• Garmin International, Inc.,

• Global Mobile Alert Corporation,

• Gracenote,

• Lindsey Research Services,

• Monotype Imaging Inc.,

• Nuance Communications, and

• Realtime Technologies, Inc.

Organizations submitting comments were:

• The AAA,

• Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety,

• Center for Auto Safety,

• Consumers Union,

• Distracted Driving Safety Alliance,

• Focus Driven Advocates for Cell Free Driving,

• Highway Safety and Technology,

• Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS),

• The International Organization for Standardization (ISO),

• The NAFA Fleet Management Association, and

• The National Safety Council.

University or Research Organizations commenting were:

• The Institute of Ergonomics (Germany),

• The National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) of the University of Iowa,

• The Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), and

• Wayne State University.

In addition, 39 individuals commented on the proposed Guidelines.

Comments were grouped into the 12 general areas listed below. The comments for nine general areas were further subdivided into individual issues. This resulted in a total of the following 51 individual issues:

• General Issues

○ NHTSA Should Issue a FMVSS Instead of Guidelines

○ The Alliance Guidelines Adequately Address Distraction

○ Suggestions to Wait for Better Data or Additional Research to be Completed

○ Suggestions for Using Voluntary Consensus Standards as a Basis for Developing NHTSA's Guidelines

○ NHTSA Should Publish the Phase 2 Guidelines Applicable to Portable and Aftermarket Devices as Soon as Possible

○ NHTSA Should Develop the Phase 3 Guidelines to Address Cognitive Distraction and Voice Interfaces as Soon as Possible

○ NHTSA's Intentions for Future Updating of its Guidelines

○ Concerns about NHTSA's Apparent Reliance on Limited Amount of Research in Developing NHTSA's Guidelines

○ Concerns that Updating Vehicle Models To Meet the NHTSA Guidelines will be Expensive

○ Concerns About the NHTSA Guidelines Preventing “911” Emergency Calls

○ Concerns About the NHTSA Guidelines Preventing Passenger Use of Electronic Devices

○ Comments on Daytime Running Lights as a Major Cause of Driver Distraction

• Issues Specific to the NHTSA Guidelines Stated Purpose

○ Concern That Failure to Meet the NHTSA Guidelines Could Result in Enforcement Action

○ NHTSA's Monitoring of Vehicles' Conformance to its Guidelines

○ Questions on Whether Automakers have to Perform Testing as Described in the NHTSA Guidelines?

○ Lead Time for the NHTSA Guidelines

• Issues Relating to the Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines

○ Inclusion of Conventional Electronic Devices and Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning in Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines

○ Confusion About Limiting Scope of NHTSA Guidelines to Non-Driving Activities

○ Suggestions to Expand Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines to Cover Medium and Heavy Trucks and Buses

○ Request That Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines Exclude Emergency Response Vehicles

○ Request That Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines Not Include Displays Required by Other Government Bodies

• Definition of Driving and Lock Out Conditions

○ Automatic Transmission Vehicles—In Park Versus At or Above 5 mph

○ Definition of Driving for Manual Transmission Vehicles

• Comments About Per Se Lock Out of Devices, Functions, and/or Tasks

○ The NHTSA Guidelines Should Not Recommend Per Se Lock Outs of Devices, Functions, and/or Tasks

○ Per Se Lock Out Relating to Reading

○ Per Se Lock Out of Manual Text Entry

○ Per Se Lock Out of Static Graphical and Photographic Images

○ Per Se Lock Out of Displaying Video Images—Dynamic Maps

○ Per Se Lock Out of Displaying Video—Trailer Hitching

○ Per Se Lock Out of Automatically Scrolling Lists and Text

○ Requests for Clarification on the Acceptability of Technology That Allows the Driver and Passenger To See Different Content from Same Visual Display

• Task Acceptance Test Protocol Issues

○ Suggestions for Other Acceptance Test Protocols

○ Concerns About the Use of Radio Tuning as Reference Task

○ NHTSA Has Not Shown That Tasks With TEORTs Longer Than 12 Seconds are Less Safe

○ Suggestions for More Stringent Task Acceptance Criteria

○ Concerns Expressed About Long Eye Glances

○ Eye Glance Measurement Issues

○ Occlusion Acceptance Test Criteria Issues

○ Suggestions to Include Effects of Workload Managers in Task Acceptance Criteria

• Definition of Goal, Dependent Task, and Subtask

• Driving Simulator Issues

○ Driving Simulator Specifications

○ Suggestions to Improve the Driving Scenario

• Test Participant Issues

○ Test Participant Demographics

○ Test Participant Impartiality

○ Other Test Participant Qualifications

○ Test Participant Instructions, Training, and Practice

• Device Response Time Recommendations

• Downward Viewing Angle Issues

• Miscellaneous Issues

○ Concerns About Recommendation That Drivers Should Have One Free Hand

○ Concerns About Device Sound Level Control Recommendations

○ Suggestion That the NHTSA Guidelines Should Recommend That All Devices can be Disabled

The concerns and suggestions raised by commenters for all of these issues have been addressed in the following portions of this notice.

IV. Analysis of Proposal Comments by Issues

A. General Issues

1. NHTSA Should Issue a FMVSS Instead of Guidelines

a. Summary of Comments

Numerous comments focused on NHTSA's decision to promulgate voluntary guidelines rather than a regulation or to take no action at all. Voluntary guidelines were supported by motor vehicle manufacturers and suppliers; regulations were supported by safety advocacy groups; and the preference for no action was supported by multiple individuals.

Support for promulgating voluntary guidelines was indicated by the majority of commenters. The following quote from the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) comments illustrates the position of those supporting voluntary guidelines:

MEMA agrees with the NHTSA approach to propose non-binding, voluntary guidelines—as opposed to regulations—because of the expedited technology growth in this sector as well as the need and desire for more research and data.

Comments received from the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, pp. 1-2. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov

, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0091.

Support for promulgating a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) on driver distraction was indicated by: Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), Center for Auto Safety, and Focus Driven Advocates for Cell Free Driving.

Detailed comments responding to points made by NHTSA rationalizing the appropriateness of voluntary guidelines were submitted by Advocates. In response to NHTSA's point that this is an area in which learning continues, and at this time, continued research is both necessary and important, Advocates said:

Advocates concurs that continued research and learning is always necessary with any regulation and new technology, both prior to and after implementation, to ensure that the regulation meets the needs of the motoring public and safety. However, convincing and compelling research has already been conducted on the subject of distracted driving. The research, cited in this and other related notices regarding distractions due to electronic devices in motor vehicles, shows that distracted driving has an increased association with visual distractions that divert driver vision from the road, manual distractions that reduce the physical ability of drivers to control the vehicle, and cognitive distractions that reduce attention and mental focus to the driving task.

By their very nature these types of distractions interfere with or reduce the ability of the driver to operate a vehicle safely and warrant regulation.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Final Rule, Limiting the Use of Wireless Communication Devices, 75 FR 59118, 59120-121 (Sept. 27, 2010) (“In work involving equipment such as vehicles, one distraction classification system includes three categories: visual (taking one's eyes off the road), physical (taking one's hands off the wheel), and cognitive (thinking about something other than the road/driving).)”

Comments received from the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, p. 6. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov

, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0069.

In response to NHTSA's point that technology is changing rapidly and a static rule put in place at this time may face unforeseen problems and issues as new technologies are developed and introduced, Advocates said:

Technology is constantly changing, in every aspect of safety, but that cannot be used as an excuse to avoid establishing minimum levels of safe operation for motor vehicles. The fact that future technological advances are likely should not prevent the need for minimum safety requirements. NHTSA has clearly identified the problem as distraction from the driving task, a safety problem that is independent of the specific distracting technology. While future technologies may involve different levels of driver distraction, the problem of driver focus being diverted from the task of operating a motor vehicle safely remains a constant. It makes no sense to avoid regulating current technologies that are overly distracting because future developments may present additional technological distractions. Assuming that the NHTSA guidelines embody the proper limitations on secondary tasks, they could apply to future as well as current technologies. Moreover, establishing regulations that prohibit the installation of new devices unless research clearly indicates that the device does not impair a driver's ability to operate a motor vehicle safely would apply equally to all new electronic devices regardless of technology.

Ibid, p. 7.

In response to NHTSA's point that available data are not sufficient at this time to permit accurate estimation of the benefits and costs of a mandatory rule in this area, Advocates said:

Finally, the agency cites the limitation of data to accurately estimate the benefits and costs of a mandatory rule in this area. However, the agency indicates that “17 percent (an estimated 899,000) of all police reported crashes involved some type of driver distraction in 2010. Of those 899,000 crashes, distraction by a device/control integral to the vehicle was reported in 26,000 crashes (3% of the distraction-related police reported crashes).” By that account, a police-reported distracted driving crash occurs every 20 minutes involving a device/control integral to the vehicle. Furthermore, this is likely a conservative estimate of distraction-related collisions given the current difficulties in identifying distraction as a cause in crashes, the ability of law enforcement to discern distraction from in-vehicle devices for inclusion on police accident reports and the recording capability of current crash databases. * * * [G]iven the significant volume of crashes already recognized as linked to distraction, time spent waiting for new data amounts to unacceptable delay while people are needlessly injured or killed in these very preventable collisions.

Ibid, p. 8.

Advocates further commented that the organization did not believe that significant effort would be required to arrive at an estimate of benefits.

Support for the “take no action at all on driver distraction” position on driver distraction was indicated by multiple individual commenters. Typical of this position is the following quote from a comment from an individual:

I understand the need for regulations and appreciate that our government is trying to keep us safer, however, I also resent that our government has invaded every aspect of our lives to a ridiculous degree. This proposal, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0053 Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices is another example of taking things too far. Immediate communications in today's society has become a necessity and instead of proposing doing away with or placing severe restrictions on everyone, place harsher sentences for people who cause accidents due to distracted driving. GPS navigation is a plus for those who are directionally challenged or those who have to make deliveries to locations to which they are unfamiliar. The many should not be restricted because of the few.

Comments received from Michael S. Dale. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov

, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0006.

b. NHTSA's Response

NHTSA declines to take no action to mitigate driver distraction, as suggested by some commenters. As discussed both earlier in this notice, and in the Initial Notice, NHTSA's crash data show that 17 percent (an estimated 899,000) of all police-reported crashes in 2010 involved some type of driver distraction. These distraction-related crashes lead, on the average, to thousands of fatalities (3,092 fatalities or 9.4 percent of those killed in 2010) and over 400,000 injured people each year (approximately 17 percent of annual injuries). This large number of fatalities, injuries, and crashes motivates NHTSA to take appropriate action to reduce these numbers.

In response to the comments that NHTSA should issue a regulation instead of voluntary guidelines, NHTSA explained in the Initial Notice that voluntary guidelines are appropriate at this time because of the need for additional research on distraction and its effect on driving and because of the rapid pace of technology changes in the area of in-vehicle electronic devices. The agency also noted concerns with the sufficiency of existing data to estimate the benefits of an in-vehicle electronic device regulation and that driver distraction testing involves drivers with inherent individual differences. These individual differences present new challenges to NHTSA in terms of developing repeatable, objective test procedures to determine conformance. After carefully considering all of the comments, NHTSA continues to believe that voluntary guidelines are the appropriate action to take at this time to reduce the potential for driver distraction.

The commenters who supported regulation instead of guidelines appear to have based their concerns on the premise that manufacturers will ignore the NHTSA Guidelines and that the Guidelines will have a limited effect, if any, on distracted driving. However, many vehicle manufacturers have already indicated their commitment to mitigate distracted driving and have shown great interest in the NHTSA Guidelines, providing detailed comments and participating in the technical workshop and public meetings held by the agency on this subject. Based on this interest, NHTSA strongly believes that many manufacturers will choose to design visual-manual, in-vehicle device interfaces to conform to the NHTSA Guidelines, and that, while voluntary, the NHTSA Guidelines will have the effect of reducing the potential for driver distraction from these devices. The agency plans to monitor industry conformance to the Guidelines, which will aid in evaluating the Guidelines' effectiveness.

In considering Advocates' comments opposing the agency's stated reasons for adopting voluntary guidelines instead of regulations at this time, NHTSA agrees that the issues identified by the agency in the Initial Notice do not necessarily prevent the agency from issuing a regulation. However, if the agency were to pursue a regulatory approach, these issues would be a concern, and in light of the strong likelihood that manufacturers will choose to conform to the NHTSA Guidelines, NHTSA believes that voluntary guidelines are the appropriate action to take at this time to reduce driver distraction.

NHTSA emphasizes that the issuance of voluntary guidelines at this time does not represent a decision to never issue regulations in this area. NHTSA will continue to conduct and review research on distracted driving and collect relevant data. The agency will also monitor conformance with the NHTSA Guidelines through testing of production vehicles. As NHTSA gathers more information on distracted driving, the agency may decide, at some future time, that regulation in this area is warranted.

2. The Alliance Guidelines Adequately Address Distraction

a. Summary of Comments

Comments were received from BMW Group, General Motors, and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, recommending that NHTSA should adopt the current voluntary Alliance Guidelines without modification. BMW's comments were the most detailed on this issue. BMW stated:

The Notice states that NHTSA has been monitoring and conducting research of the implementation of the Alliance Guidelines, and found “(1) Manufacturers have different interpretations of the guidelines themselves, leading to different implementations, (2) newer techniques exist to evaluate these interfaces than existed nearly a decade ago, (3) the guidelines have not kept pace with technology, and (4) more recent data compiled from naturalistic driving studies implies that more stringent criteria are needed.”

BMW would like to submit the following comments to each of the above NHTSA findings:

(1) NHTSA's communication with manufacturers on how they implement the guidelines and what tools are being used was limited. Differences in the results may also be the result of differences in the HMI design of each manufacturer.

(2) The proposed methods in the Federal Guidelines do not differ in terms of being new from what the Alliance Guidelines propose. The Federal Guidelines include measurements of glance behavior, as well as driving performance compared to an accepted reference task, and an occlusion method. The main difference among both sets of guidelines is that NHTSA has set unfounded more stringent performance criteria than the Alliance and eliminated performance testing in terms of driving behavior.

(3) NHTSA has not stated which particular new technology is not covered by the scope of the Alliance Guidelines. In fact, the Alliance guidelines actually refer to “new” information and communication technology and devices with visual and manual/visual interfaces.

(4) NHTSA only provides results for light weight vehicles from the 100-Car study. However, in this study no “new” technology besides nomadic devices was installed in the vehicles. In addition, NHTSA does not provide any real world safety data that shows the need for the Alliance criteria to be updated. NHTSA did however provide data from a study with professional truck drivers that should not be compared to normal drivers and light weight vehicles.

* * * BMW believes it is easier for vehicle manufacturers to agree to modifying current guidelines based on new emerging technologies, than for the Agency to go through Federal notices, commenting periods, etc., to modify the Federal Guidelines.

Comments received from BMW Group, p. 4. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov

, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0094.

On the other hand, Dr. Richard A. Young of the Wayne State University School of Medicine commented that the NHTSA Guidelines represent a potential opportunity to make much-needed updates to the Alliance Guidelines.

Comments of Dr. Richard A. Young, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0053-0106.

b. NHTSA's Response

After carefully reviewing all of the comments received on this point, NHTSA continues to believe that it should issue its own voluntary driver distraction guidelines that improve upon the Alliance Guidelines. Although the agency agrees with BMW that the NHTSA Guidelines adopt many of the same approaches contained in the Alliance Guidelines, the NHTSA Guidelines improve upon the Alliance Guidelines in a number of ways, and NHTSA believes that these improvements support the agency's decision to draft its own Guidelines.

First, NHTSA believes that distraction guidelines should be applicable to all communications, entertainment, information, and navigation devices installed in vehicles as original equipment. Although the Alliance Guidelines apply to new technology, as commented on by BMW, the Alliance Guidelines explicitly state that they are not intended to apply to common electronic devices referred to as “conventional information or communications systems,” such as radios, CD players, cassette players, and MP3 players. However, even these conventional systems can potentially distract drivers and present a safety risk,

and, as in-vehicle systems continue to offer more functionality, the interfaces for these conventional systems could become more complex and potentially more distracting in the future. Accordingly, NHTSA believes that it is important to establish guidelines that are applicable to tasks associated with these systems.

For example, the 100-car study indicated that operating a CD player as a risk odds ratio of 2.25. Again, a risk ratio of 1.0 means that a secondary task has the same risk as average driving.

Additionally, new guidelines are needed so as to incorporate the latest driver distraction research into the guidelines. There has been much research on driver distraction in the nearly seven years since the Alliance Guidelines were last updated. This research includes controlled human factors studies, naturalistic study analyses, and crash statistics studies examining the real world effects of distraction on safety. NHTSA believes that it is valuable to incorporate the results of this recent research into guidelines that serve to reduce or prevent driver distraction.

In particular, some of the more recent research suggests improvements that can be made to certain aspects of the Alliance Guidelines. For example, for the eye glance test protocol, the Alliance Guidelines use radio tuning as a reference task to establish the maximum recommended threshold for the total eyes off road time (TEORT) to complete a task. NHTSA believes that the Alliance Guidelines make a strong case for basing the maximum amount of distraction associated with a task on the level of distraction induced by performing a “reference task.” We also agree that manual radio tuning is an appropriate reference task.

The Alliance Guidelines acceptance criterion for TEORT is 20 seconds, based on the organization's estimate of the 85th percentile TEORT for radio tuning. However, as described in the Initial Notice and in Section IV.F, NHTSA's recent research results suggested that the 85th percentile TEORT associated with radio tuning is 12 seconds rather than 20 seconds. Moreover, NHTSA's review of the Alliance's basis for the 20-second value revealed several statistical problems, described below in Section IV.F.2. Examining the data used by the Alliance, NHTSA used three methods to estimate the 85th percentile TEORT for radio tuning and the average of the three TEORT values was 12.33 seconds. Although NHTSA supports the reference-task approach used in the Alliance Guidelines, this research and analysis undermines the 20-second TEORT threshold in the Alliance Guidelines and indicates a need for more up-to-date driver distraction guidelines. Based on this research and confirmed by the agency's analysis of the data relied on in the Alliance Guidelines, the NHTSA Guidelines include a 12-second TEORT threshold.

NHTSA also used more recent research in designing the recommended test protocols. This research provided information regarding the robustness of eye glance metrics and protocol aspects such as sample size and its effect on the statistical validity of test results. A discussion of this research, completed from 2007 to 2011, is summarized in the Initial Notice.

77 FR 11207-11211.

NHTSA believes that Federal driver distraction guidelines are also necessary

in order to avoid potential safety risks not addressed by the Alliance Guidelines and to ensure that guidelines promoted by NHTSA are consistent with other Federal actions regarding distraction. For example, although the Alliance Guidelines list a few general categories of information that should always be inaccessible to the driver while driving (e.g., video, automatically-scrolling text), most activities are permitted if they meet the acceptance criteria. NHTSA believes that certain additional activities, including those that are discouraged by public policy and, in some instances, prohibited by Federal regulation and State law (e.g., entering or displaying text messages), should always be inaccessible to the driver while driving.

Another example relates to when excessively distracting tasks are accessible. The Alliance Guidelines recommend locking out tasks that do not meet the Alliance Guidelines while driving and define “driving” as when the vehicle speed is 5 mph or greater. Thus, excessively distracting tasks can be performed when the vehicle is moving slowly or stopped in traffic. However, as described in detail in Section IV.D below, NHTSA is concerned about the safety risk associated with allowing excessively distracting tasks to be performed by while a vehicle is in motion or in traffic and notes that the relevant Federal statute, regulations, and Executive Order related to texting while driving define “driving” to include the operation of a vehicle while temporarily stopped because of traffic, a traffic light or stop sign or other momentary delays. Accordingly, NHTSA has defined

driving

to include all situations in which the vehicle's engine or motor is operating unless the vehicle is in Park or, for manual transmission vehicles, an equivalent condition.

NHTSA has also identified some aspects of the current Alliance Guidelines that are loosely specified and believes it is necessary to provide well-specified test criteria in order to have a standardized test for measuring the impact of secondary task performance and determining whether the task is acceptable for performance while driving. Otherwise, implementation of the guidance may be inconsistent because of varying interpretations in the industry. In particular, a clear definition of a “task” must be asserted to specify the series of driver actions needed to perform a secondary task that should be assessed for conformance to guidelines criteria. While the definition of a task used in the Alliance Guidelines is short and conceptually clear,

it can be difficult to determine whether a certain activity should be considered one task or several. This is particularly challenging to do for devices and tasks that have not yet been developed. The Alliance Guidelines also provide little information about test participant characteristics and do not indicate how many participants should be tested.

The Alliance Guidelines define a task as “a sequence of control operations (i.e., a specific method) leading to a goal at which the driver will normally persist until the goal is reached. Example: Obtaining guidance by entering a street address using the scrolling list method until route guidance is initiated.”

Accordingly, NHTSA is specifying a recommended test procedure that is straight-forward, clearly defined, and well-substantiated to aid the voluntary adoption of its NHTSA Guidelines. Minimizing the opportunity for variability in carrying out the test procedure will ensure that manufacturers will be able to easily and consistently implement the NHTSA Guidelines across their light vehicle fleets.

Finally, in response to BMW's final point that “it is easier for

vehicle manufacturers to agree

into [sic] modifying current guidelines based on new emerging technologies, than for the Agency to go through Federal notices, commenting periods, etc., to modify the Federal Guidelines,”

(emphasis added by NHTSA), the agency notes that it is not just the vehicle manufacturers who are concerned about the effect of driver distraction on motor vehicle safety. In response to the Initial Notice, NHTSA received many comments from individual members of the general public, consumer advocacy organizations (e.g., Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Consumers Union) and other Government agencies (National Transportation Safety Board) all of whom were concerned about the contents of these guidelines. The input of all stakeholders, not just vehicle manufacturers, should be considered in taking action to reduce driver distraction. The advantage of issuing Federal guidelines is that by providing public notice and facilitating participation from various stakeholders through a public comment period, more information from different sources can be considered and evaluated as part of developing and updating the guidelines.

Ibid.

3. Suggestions To Wait for Better Data or Additional Research To Be Completed

a. Summary of Comments

Comments were received from Agero, BMW Group, General Motors, Global Automakers, the National Safety Council, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., VDA, the German Association of the Automotive Industry, and Volkswagen Group of America recommending that NHTSA should delay issuance of its Guidelines (or, if NHTSA decided to issue its own guidelines now, make them identical to the current voluntary Alliance Guidelines on an interim basis) until better driver distraction data becomes available. One commonly mentioned upcoming source of better driver distraction data is that coming from the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2).

Performance of the SHRP2 program was authorized by Congress in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59, signed by President George W. Bush on August 10, 2005) to address some of the most pressing needs related to the nation's highway system. It is managed by the Transportation Research Board on behalf of the National Research Council. One of the four research focus areas of SHRP2 is the Safety area. The goal of the Safety area is to:

Prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behavior. The Safety area is conducting the largest ever naturalistic driving study to better understand the interaction among various factors involved in highway crashes—driver, vehicle, and infrastructure—so that better safety countermeasures can be developed and applied to save lives.

Information taken from the SHRP2 Web site. Accessed on July 5, 2012 at

http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/General.aspx

SHRP2's naturalistic data collection is currently in progress. This data collection is projected to be completed and the data is estimated to become available for analysis beginning in April 2014.

Volkswagen Group of America was typical of the commenters advocating that NHTSA wait until SHRP2 results become available before issuing its own guidelines. Quoting from the Volkswagen comments:

Volkswagen urges the agency to reconsider the current proposal. The agency should await the results of the ongoing Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP2). The SHRP2 naturalistic driving study was in large part motivated by the need to gain a better

understanding of driver distraction under conditions of real-world driving (as opposed to under experimental conditions). The comprehensive monitoring data collected under SHRP2 will provide evidence gathered under normal driving conditions by a wide range of drivers, the data from whom will show when and how they engage in secondary tasks while driving, including what happens when things go wrong. Given that more recent human factors studies have shown that the relationship between relative crash risk and simple eye glance metrics such as eyes-off-road time may be more complicated than first assumed, we believe that the data expected from SHRP2 will be essential to understanding whether or to what extent eye glance measures can be used to accurately assess distraction risk, or whether other performance-based measures are necessary for this purpose. We recommend that the Agency await the results of the SHRP2 project, and engage with the industry and academia in conducting peer-reviewed studies to support improved test methods and metrics.

Comments received from Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., p. 7. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov

, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0101.

In their comments, the National Safety Council discussed what they perceive as the limitations of naturalistic driving data for determining the adequacy of countermeasures for limiting and reducing driver distraction associated with the use of in-vehicle electronic devices while driving. Quoting from the National Safety Council comments:

Over-reliance on a single study design

. The decision to release guidelines in three phases, rolled out over many years, with the first phase addressing visual-manual use of electronic devices, is based on the findings of only three studies. Each of these studies has significant limitations. NSC believes that Federal guidelines with the potential to influence the safety of vehicles should be based on a much broader range of research.

Naturalistic driving studies have been described by those involved with this research as the “gold standard” in traffic safety research. Certainly there are some driver distraction insights that can be uniquely gained by this study design; for example, in-vehicle cameras record crash factors that otherwise may never be captured. However, the National Safety Council believes it is inappropriate to rely so heavily on only one study design with a limited number of participants and crashes. NSC does not believe there is any single gold standard study design. There simply is no perfect study design for an issue as complex as traffic safety. All study designs—including naturalistic studies—have strengths and limitations.

The best approach is to base decision-making on the findings of numerous studies of different designs, conducted by varying research institutions. If there is a convergence of similar findings from studies of varying designs, conducted by different researchers with different participant populations, NSC believes that convergence of findings deserves careful attention.

Comments received from the National Safety Council, pp. 2-3. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov

, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0085.

b. NHTSA's Response

After carefully reviewing all of the comments received in response to the Initial Notice, NHTSA continues to believe that it should issue its voluntary Driver Distraction Guidelines immediately with this notice based on its current research base. However, NHTSA emphasizes that the agency remains open to amending the NHTSA Guidelines in the future in response to the results of SHRP2.

NHTSA has been sponsoring outside research and performing in-house research on driver distraction for approximately 20 years. In addition, during this time NHTSA has reviewed much of the research performed by academia, the motor vehicle industry, other Government agencies, and other organizations. Although the NSC is correct that there is no one gold standard study design or approach, there is in fact currently no better method for establishing crash risk for distracting behaviors than naturalistic driving studies. Experimental studies conducted with simulators and test-tracks are excellent for observing how distracting behaviors can affect driver performance measures such as reaction times to critical events, lane keeping performance, headway maintenance, and visual attention, but they cannot estimate crash risk. In addition, experimental methods do not capture the critical element of when drivers choose to engage in distracting behaviors. Naturalistic driving studies measure distracting behaviors

as drivers actually choose to engage in them in their normal driving conditions and patterns,

and they establish the crash risk associated with those distracting behaviors. Dozens of experimental studies (see Regan, Lee, and Young, 2009) have demonstrated key distraction effects like slower reaction times, but researchers can only estimate the impact of those effects on the potential for crash consequences. Although naturalistic driving studies cannot measure precise driving performance decrements like experimental studies can, naturalistic driving studies are able determine whether the behaviors associated with those performance decrements actually lead to elevated crash risk. Accordingly, NHTSA feels strongly that the referenced naturalistic driving studies provide sufficient justification for pursuing the selected test method and thresholds.

NHTSA eagerly awaits results from SHRP2, which should materialize in the next two to three years, the agency's own naturalistic cell phone data collection, and other in-progress or planned research. However, the agency notes SHRP2 is a far-reaching naturalistic driving study that was designed to address a variety of issues related to nation's highway system, including the high toll taken by highway deaths and injuries, aging infrastructure that must be rehabilitated with minimum disruption to users, and congestion stemming both from inadequate physical capacity and from events that reduce the effective capacity of a highway facility. Although distraction is an important topic for SHRP2 data, it is not one of the primary motivations for the program as suggested by Volkswagen. NHTSA strongly believes that the data gained from completed naturalistic driving studies and other research into visual attention measures is sufficient and provides a reasonable basis to proceed with the immediate issuance of Phase 1 of the voluntary NHTSA Guidelines.

A major reason compelling NHTSA to release Driver Distraction Guidelines now is that they are based on a number of fundamental principles related to driver distraction that are unlikely to be contradicted by future research. These principles are:

• The driver's eyes should usually be looking at the road ahead,

• The driver should be able to keep at least one hand on the steering wheel while performing a secondary task (both driving-related and non-driving related),

• The distraction induced by any secondary task performed while driving should not exceed that associated with a baseline reference task (manual radio tuning),

• Any task performed by a driver should be interruptible at any time,

• The driver should control the pace of task interactions, not the system/device, and

• Displays should be easy for the driver to see and content presented should be easily discernible.

Results from future research could cause NHTSA to consider changing some of the details of its Guidelines; however, modification of any of these basic principles is unlikely.

SHRP2's naturalistic data collection is projected to be completed and the data become available for analysis in March 2014. Allowing a reasonable amount of time to evaluate the results and draft guidelines based on those results,

awaiting the results from SHRP2 could result in approximately a three-year delay versus issuing NHTSA's Phase 1 Guidelines immediately.

There are practical consequences to delaying the issuance of the NHTSA Guidelines. As discussed above, the most recent crash data available, 2010 data, show that 899,000 motor vehicle crashes involved a report of a distracted driver. These distraction-related crashes lead, on the average, to thousands of fatalities (3,092 fatalities) and over 400,000 injured people each year. NHTSA believes that the voluntary Guidelines are an important step towards reducing the number of these crashes and resulting fatalities, and, therefore, there is a need to issue them as soon as possible.

In summary, NHTSA believes that it has sufficient information to issue good Driver Distraction Guidelines immediately that will reduce the driver distraction safety problem. With the greater flexibility afforded by voluntary guidelines, NHTSA expects that it will be able to rapidly modify its Guidelines should SHRP2 results indicate ways in which to make the NHTSA Guidelines more effective.

4. Suggestions for Using Voluntary Consensus Standards as a Basis for Developing NHTSA's Guidelines

a. Summary of Comments

Comments were received from Dr. Paul Green and American Honda Motor Company drawing NHTSA's attention to two SAE recommended practices, SAE J2364 and J2365. Both commenters disagree with NHTSA's statement in the Initial Notice that:

The agency is not aware of any applicable voluntary consensus standards that are appropriate for driver distraction stemming from driver interactions with in-vehicle electronic devices.

Dr. Green's comments go on to state:

The NHTSA guidelines are based on the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) guidelines, which are an elaboration of the European Statement of Principles. The process by which the Statement of Principles was developed is not well known, but what matters most is that the AAM is not a recognized standards development organization. Their standards were not developed in meetings the public could attend, there were no well-advertised calls for public comment, and other requirements for recognized standards development organization were not followed.

Comments received from Dr. Paul Green, p. 2. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov

, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0052.

Comments were also received from American Honda Motor Company and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) drawing NHTSA's attention to a variety of international standards for assessing driver distraction. Mentioned were: ISO 15007:2002, “Road Vehicles—Measurement of Driver Visual Behavior with Respect to Transport Information and Control Systems,” ISO 16673:2007 “Road vehicles—Ergonomic Aspects of Transport Information and Control Systems—Occlusion Method to Assess Visual Demand due to the use of In-Vehicle Systems,” and ISO 26022:2010, “Road vehicles—Ergonomic Aspects of Transport Information and Control Systems—Simulated Lane Change Test to Assess In-Vehicle Secondary Task Demand.” The ISO also pointed out that, since NHTSA is interested in detection response tasks testing, a new ISO standard, WD 17488, “Road vehicles—Transport Information and Control Systems—Detection Response Task,” is under development and encourages NHTSA to participate in a joint development approach.

Comments received from ISO, p. 1. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov

, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0087.

b. NHTSA's Response

Three of the above mentioned recommended practices/international standards were not discussed in the Initial Notice. A short description of each is given followed by NHTSA's thoughts about that recommended practice/international standard.

SAE Recommended Practice J2364, “Navigation and Route Guidance Function Accessibility While Driving Rationale,” establishes two alternative testing procedures for determining which navigation and route guidance functions should be accessible to the driver while the vehicle is in motion. (This recommended practice could be generalized to devices other than route navigation systems). The two testing procedures are a static completion time method and an interrupted vision (occlusion) method. Compliance criterion values are 15 seconds for the static completion time method (15-second rule) and 20 seconds Total Shutter Open Time (TSOT) for the occlusion method.

NHTSA performed research on the diagnostic properties of the static completion time test method during the late 1990's.

Ten participants, aged 55 to 69 years, completed 15 tasks, including navigation system destination entry, radio tuning, manual phone dialing, and adjusting the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) controls in a test vehicle. Correlations between static task completion times and task completion times while driving were relatively low. The results were interpreted to mean that static measurement of task completion time was not sufficient for determining whether a task was so distracting that it should not be performed while driving. Based on these results, NHTSA looked to other metrics and methods for use in assessing secondary task distraction in subsequent research.

Tijerina, L., Parmer, E., and Goodman, M.J., “Driver Workload Assessment of Route Guidance System Destination Entry While Driving: A Test Track Study,” Proceedings of the 5th ITS World Congress, Berlin, Germany: VERTIS (CD-ROM), 1998.

NHTSA does agree with the occlusion test method albeit with a different TSOT criterion than recommended by SAE J2364. For the procedural details of occlusion testing, NHTSA prefers ISO 16673:2007 which is an international voluntary consensus standard.

SAE Recommended Practice J2365, “Calculation of the Time to Complete In-Vehicle Navigation and Route Guidance Tasks,” establishes a process for estimating the static completion time required to perform a task by decomposing the task into a series of goals, sub-goals, and actions and then assigning a static completion time estimate for each action. Static completion time estimates are provided in an appendix to the document.

There are two reasons NHTSA chose not to use SAE J2365 in the NHTSA Guidelines:

• It is a method for estimating static completion times for performing a task. As such, it is useful during the design of a device. However, NHTSA's monitoring of conformance to its Driver Distraction Guidelines will be based on the testing of actual, production vehicles and devices and not on estimates of driver performance while performing a task.

• As discussed earlier, the results of past NHTSA static task completion time research were interpreted to mean that static measurement of task completion time was not sufficient to determine whether a task was sufficiently distracting that it should not be performed while driving.

For these reasons, NHTSA declines to adopt the suggestion that the agency use SAE J2365 in its Guidelines.

NHTSA has long been aware of ISO 15007:2002. Part 1 of this standard contains eye glance measurement definitions while Part 2 discusses eye glance measurement methodological issues. This standard does not specify a particular methodology for eye glance

measurement and is broad enough to cover many different methodologies.

The NHTSA Guidelines are consistent with ISO 15007:2002 with several minor exceptions. The NHTSA Guidelines also provide additional detail about the methods for determining eye glances and ways to ensure accuracy beyond ISO 15007:2002. Specifically, the NHTSA Guidelines permit verification through either manual reduction of eye glance data (researchers determining glance times from video footage) or eye tracker data (glance times and eye glance location measured by a device).

When manual reduction of eye glance data has been required, transition times (time between two eye glance fixations) are combined with dwell times (the time fixated on a particular point) to define glance duration, as specified by ISO 15007:2002.

When data from an eye tracker is used, the glance time is defined as the time away from the forward roadway view. Transition time away from the forward view is combined with the dwell time while the driver is looking at the secondary task interface, which is consistent with the ISO specification; however transition time back to the forward roadway view is not combined with the subsequent time spent looking forward. This deviation is due to the fact that while a fixed boundary is used to define the road center when analyzing the eye tracker data, a comparable boundary defining the secondary task interface is not used. This is because eye tracker precision deteriorates as the driver moves his or her head away from the forward view. Boundaries near secondary task interfaces are prone to error. Thus, NHTSA has defined its eye glance metric (TEORT) in terms of time away from the forward view to maximize precision. The agency has compared the times obtained with eye tracker and manual reduction of the same data and have concluded that differences between these approaches are negligible.

NHTSA's test procedures are generally consistent with the specifications of ISO 15007:2002, again with minor exceptions. In particular, agency testing has not involved categorization of drivers by visual ability or driving experience. Rather, NHTSA's test protocols have required only that participants have a valid driver's license, thus assuming a basic level of visual acuity, and that they drive a minimum number of miles each year. Procedures for data collection, reduction, and presentation have been consistent with ISO 15007:2002.

ISO 26022:2010 describes a dynamic dual-task method that quantitatively measures human performance degradation on a primary driving-like task while a secondary task is being performed (Lane Change Test). The result is an estimate of secondary task demand.

NHTSA performed research on the diagnostic properties of the Lane Change Test (LCT) method during 2006.

Twenty-six participants, aged 25 to 50 years, performed the LCT in a driving simulator while performing selected secondary tasks. The LCT uses a single metric that is driving performance related. Results from this testing found that the LCT's metric was less sensitive to differences between secondary tasks than those from the Dynamic Following and Detection (DFD) test protocol. The multiple metrics associated with the DFD protocol were better able to capture the multidimensional aspects of distraction. The Peripheral Detection Task (PDT) component of the DFD was thought to be a more sensitive detection task than the detection task component used in LCT, due to the higher frequency of stimulus presentations. As a result, subsequent NHTSA research focused on the DFD test protocol.

Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Vasko, S.M., and Mazzae, E.N., “Measuring Distraction Potential of Operating In-Vehicle Devices,” DOT HS 811 231, December 2009.

NHTSA agrees that the Alliance Guidelines are not voluntary consensus-based international or United States standards. In the Initial Notice, they were referred to as “industry-developed standards.” However, despite these facts, NHTSA continues to believe that they are a better basis for development of the NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines than the voluntary consensus standard cited by the commenters.

Finally, NHTSA has considerable interest in detection-response task testing and believes that it may offer considerable promise for acceptance testing for auditory-vocal human-machine interfaces. While NHTSA is just getting started on this research, we will consider participating with ISO in a joint development approach and international standard.

5. Publish NHTSA's Driver Distraction Guidelines to Portable and Aftermarket Devices as Soon as Possible

a. Summary of Comments

Numerous commenters encouraged NHTSA to quickly develop and publish its Driver Distraction Guidelines for non-OE electronic devices (referred to as portable or aftermarket devices or PAD elsewhere in this document) in light vehicles. Some commenters indicated that they would prefer that NHTSA implement the guidelines for PAD simultaneously with the guidelines for OE electronic devices.

Commenters voiced concern that by having NHTSA's Driver Distraction Guidelines only cover OE electronic devices, consumers would shift from OE electronic devices to the less-restricted (but possibly also less safe) PADs. Many commenters addressed this issue; quotes from some typical comments are below. From the comment submitted by the Alliance:

Consumers have numerous connectivity options, particularly via portable electronic devices. They will quickly migrate to alternate, and potentially more distracting and less safe, means of staying connected if the use of in-vehicle or “integrated” options is overly curtailed.

In this regard, it has become increasingly clear to Alliance members that guidelines for portable electronic devices need to be developed in parallel with those for integrated systems and released as a single, common set of comprehensive guideline for visual-manual interfaces.

Comments received from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, p. 2. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov,

Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0104.

From the comments received from Toyota:

Recommend that NHTSA consider the unintended consequences of substantially reducing the functionality of in-vehicle electronic devices when drivers can easily switch to handheld devices which are not designed specifically for use while driving.

Comments received from Toyota Motor North America, Inc., p. 2. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov

, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0092.

Finally, from the comments received from Consumers Union:

In addition, although the current set of Guidelines is not intended to address portable devices, Consumers Union also hopes NHTSA will clarify that the Guidelines do encompass controls integral to the car that are meant to control portable devices. An example is the ability to integrate portable music player or cell phone control through the vehicle's controls. We also encourage NHTSA to take up consideration of the Guidelines for portable devices as soon as possible. As more and more portable technologies—tablets being just the latest—become available for incorporation into passenger vehicles, the need for NHTSA to address the safety issues inherent therein is pressing.

Comments received from the Consumers Union, p. 2. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov

, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0063.

b. NHTSA's Response

NHTSA intends to publish the NHTSA Guidelines for light vehicles to cover PADs as soon as feasible. This was originally stated in the April 2010 “Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Driver Distraction Program,”

(NHTSA's Distraction Plan) which summarized steps that NHTSA intended to take to reduce crashes attributable to driver distraction and it remains NHTSA's intention.

“Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Driver Distraction Program,” DOT HS 811 299, April 2010. Available at

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/811299.pdf

As described in NHTSA's Distraction Plan, NHTSA is developing its Driver Distraction Guidelines for light vehicles in three phases. The first phase consists of these Guidelines for visual-manual interfaces of OE electronic devices in vehicles. The second phase will address visual-manual interfaces of PADs. The third phase will address auditory-vocal interfaces for both OE electronic devices and PADs. The commenters advocated for NHTSA to move rapidly ahead with Phase 2 of its guidelines, and many of them want the Phase 2 Guidelines to be released at the same time as the Phase 1 Guidelines.

Issuing the Phase 2 Guidelines at this time is not a feasible option. NHTSA is currently gathering information and developing the draft Initial Notice for the Phase 2 NHTSA Guidelines. Completion of this work is necessary before the Phase 2 Guidelines can be issued. While this work is being performed, NHTSA will have the opportunity to work with both the PAD and vehicle manufacturing communities to discover the best ways to implement our recommendations for PADs.

There are additional, PAD-specific, issues that NHTSA is considering addressing in the Phase 2 Guidelines. Some of these include:

• The issue of linking or pairing PADs and in-vehicle systems and how to encourage use of the in-vehicle human machine interface (HMI) rather than the PAD HMI.

• The issue of ensuring PAD-use is unimpaired for passengers.

• The issue of PAD positioning within a motor vehicle. A PAD could potentially obstruct a driver's vision or ability to safely operate the vehicle.

• The issue of PAD mounting within a motor vehicle. A PAD could potentially act as a projectile that may injure vehicle occupants in the event of sudden severe maneuvering or a crash.

The agency also declines to delay the Phase 1 Guidelines until the Phase 2 Guidelines are ready to be issued. As described below in Section IV.B.4, it is envisioned that automakers will likely choose to incorporate the NHTSA guidelines during their normal vehicle redesign schedule. Since this is typically every 3-5 years, it is expected that most, if not all, vehicle models will not have completed a redesign before the Phase 2 Guidelines are published. Given this, there should be minimal impact given the slight time gap between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Guidelines and the fact that the same principles will guide both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Guidelines.

Although some commenters expressed concern that by having NHTSA's Guidelines only cover OE electronic devices, consumers would shift from OE electronic devices to the less-restricted (but possibly also less safe) PAD devices, this concern is based on the assumption that safer in-vehicle systems will not be sufficiently functional to attract drivers away from use of hand-held devices and would somehow have the opposite effect. On the contrary, vehicle manufacturers are rapidly expanding the voice-command and hands-free, eyes-free capabilities of their in-vehicle systems. These systems (designed to at least meet the Alliance Guidelines) are engineered (and would remain so if designed in conformance with NHTSA's Phase 1 Guidelines) to encourage the handheld users to pair those devices with the vehicle's displays and controls. Having done so, NHTSA sees no evidence that drivers would un-pair the devices from the vehicle system simply to obtain marginally increased functionality in very limited situations. For example, an in-vehicle system that permits hands-free voice messaging has convenience advantages over a hand-held device, such as the use of more accessible controls and enhanced auditory clarity. As a result, the agency thinks that there would be little incentive for a driver to revert to the hand-held simply to perform a locked-out function such as texting. Therefore, should manufacturers choose to conform to the NHTSA guidelines, the agency thinks the more likely outcome is that drivers will pair their hand-helds to the vehicle systems during all driving situations, with a net benefit for safety.

Accordingly, NHTSA believes that automotive safety can best be maximized by proceeding with Phase 1 of its Driver Distraction Guidelines (covering OE electronic devices in light vehicles) at this time.

NHTSA intends to issue its Phase 2 Driver Distraction Guidelines as soon as feasible. The Phase 2 Guidelines will be based on general principles similar to those upon which these Phase 1 Guidelines are based. These principles are:

• The driver's eyes should usually be looking at the road ahead,

• The driver should be able to keep at least one hand on the steering wheel,

• Any task performed by driving should be interruptible at any time,

• The driver should control the human-machine interface and not vice versa, and

• Displays should be easy for the driver to see.

Until the Phase 2 Guidelines are issued, the agency recommends that developers and manufacturers of portable and aftermarket devices consider these principles as they design and update their products. NHTSA further encourages these developers and manufacturers to adopt any recommendations in the Phase 1 Guidelines that they believe are feasible and appropriate for their devices.

6. Develop NHTSA's Guidelines To Address Cognitive Distraction and Voice Interfaces as Soon as Possible

a. Summary of Comments

Numerous commenters discussed the role of cognitive distraction and the need for guidelines that cover voice-activated technologies. Many comments urged NHTSA to move swiftly toward the development of guidelines to cover these technologies. The National Safety Council (NSC) commented on the lack of recognition of the potential impact of cognitive distraction. Specifically:

The choice to focus on the three naturalistic studies, rather than considering the body of research that examined cognitive distraction of cell phone use, has led to a lack of discussion about the potential impact of cognitive distraction for the first phases of the guidelines.

Comments received from the National Safety Council, p. 4. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov

, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0085.

On the relation between voice-based interfaces and cognitive distraction NSC offered the following:

NSC is concerned about the continued advance of voice-activated in-vehicle technology without Federal guidelines in place, and without testing for cognitive impact by researchers independent of the auto industry. Once technology is introduced to the vehicle fleet and consumers are influenced to use it, it will become very difficult to change behaviors and the vehicle environment.

Ibid, p. 5.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) also expressed concern

about the under emphasis on cognitive distraction. Specifically,

The NTSB is concerned that the NHTSA Driver Distraction Program is based on the assumption that the primary risk associated with in-vehicle PED [Portable Electronic Device; these comments use “in-vehicle PED” to refer to both OE devices and PADs] use by drivers is visual-manual interaction. It is essential to understand the cognitive demands associated with secondary tasks, particularly auditory-vocal communication tasks, in the context of in-vehicle information and communication devices.

As evidenced by the work of panelists attending the recent NTSB forum on countermeasures to distraction, numerous studies have shown that driver distraction occurs during both handheld and hands-free cell phone conversations. NHTSA acknowledges that there is a large amount of research on the topic of driver distraction, yet the guidelines appear to focus on naturalistic driving studies.

Particularly, this notice refers to naturalistic driving research that reports that engaging in hands-free phone conversations while driving is safe and provides a protective effect. This finding, from the commercial vehicle naturalistic study, is but one piece of an overall body of research and should be considered within the context of its limitations. Although naturalistic studies provide extremely strong evidence for distraction involving driver behaviors such as visual or manual activities, naturalistic studies, given their dependence on video data, cannot fully assess the cognitive demands associated with hands-free secondary tasks.

The measurement of cognitive distraction that does not result in drivers taking their eyes off the road is essential. Both driver performance and brain activity should be assessed to better understand cognitive load. The NTSB findings from its investigation of the 2004 Alexandria, Virginia, motorcoach accident involving the driver's use of a hands-free cell phone are consistent with research showing that drivers conversing on a cell phone—whether handheld or hands-free—are cognitively distracted from the driving task.

Comments received from the National Transportation Safety Board, pp. 4-5. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov,

Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0066.

Accordingly, the NTSB encouraged NHTSA to minimize the delay between the phases to avoid the “* * * reliance on voice-based in-vehicle systems with flawed designs that may increase the cognitive distraction of drivers.”

Ibid.

Closely tied to concerns about cognitive distraction are concerns that voice recognition based controls may cause a substantial degree of cognitive distraction. The following quote from the comment submitted by Consumers Union discusses this concern:

One possible consequence of these Guidelines is that many functions will move from visual-manual control to voice recognition control. While this technology is proven to reduce eyes-off-road time, it does have some shortcomings. Systems have varying capabilities of recognizing voice commands, especially when the speaker has an accent. In addition, constant audio updates to a driver can pose their own distraction problems.

While we understand that voice controls will be addressed in a later Notice, we are concerned that manufacturers will begin to implement voice recognition technologies that are not currently covered by any NHTSA Guidelines. This is especially concerning given current driver demand for text messaging and social media capability, both of which are prohibited by the Guidelines. If manufacturers incorporate voice-controlled text messaging and social media capabilities in their vehicles instead of visual-manual controls, drivers could end up experiencing a constant and continuous audio stream of updated information while driving—a substitute that could be very cognitively distracting. Consumers Union therefore urges NHTSA to issue its Guidelines for voice operated controls as quickly as possible, and to address the shortcomings of this particular technology, so that the distractions do not simply shift from visual-manual to audio feeds.

Comments received from the Consumers Union, p. 4. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov

, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0063.

Other commenters encouraged NHTSA to consider the impact of voice-based interfaces in mitigating the distraction effects of visual-manual interfaces. General Motors (GM) offered the following comment:

The guidelines should also recognize that voice-based interactions can provide a key mechanism for drivers to interact with systems in ways that support the operation and control of the vehicle. Voice interaction can be a method to reduce both mean glance times and total eyes-off-road time.

Comments received from General Motors, p. 2. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov

, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0103.

GM recommended that:

NHTSA immediately begin incorporating voice principles into its distraction guidelines for both handheld/portable and in-vehicle integrated electronic devices resulting in a fully integrated total package.

Ibid.

Agero Inc. was one of a number of organizations that encouraged NHTSA to adopt a comprehensive and holistic approach to the development of guidelines, based on their observation that, “* * * embedded and nomadic in-vehicle human machine interfaces (HMI)—visual, manual, interactive voice, speech recognition, haptic and gesture display technologies—have already begun to converge,”

and that “* * * natural-language speech systems present real potential to mitigate driver distraction.”

Comments received from Agero Inc., p. 3. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov

, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0090.

Ibid, p. 6.

b. NHTSA's Response

NHTSA generally shares these commenters' concerns. We agree that the issues associated with cognitive distraction and voice recognition-based interactions need to be resolved to maximize motor vehicle safety. However, these are challenging issues which NHTSA believes must be carefully researched to provide a basis for guidelines.

The general issue of cognitive distraction is as much an issue of driver behavior as it is of OE/PAD device design. Cognitive distraction is difficult to quantify because it occurs in many different driving situations and is highly individualized. While drivers can be cognitively distracted while talking on a cell phone, they can also be cognitively distracted by a passenger or even just by themselves when not using an electronic device (e.g., “lost in thought”). Drivers can be engaged in light conversation (little to no cognitive distraction) or deeply engaged in discussion or debate (highly cognitively distracting) either on a cell phone or with a passenger. Drivers participating in a casual conversation on a cell phone (or to a passenger), are likely to be minimally, if at all, cognitively distracted.

NHTSA is currently working to address driver behavior by supporting state laws which prohibit certain distracting activities while driving (e.g., texting and hand-held cell phone bans), driver education, and other driver and passenger behavior modification efforts to influence safe driving choices.

NHTSA believes that well designed human-machine interfaces may help to mitigate cognitive distraction. Complicated device interfaces can clearly induce driver distraction during use. NHTSA's Phase 1 Driver Distraction Guidelines will promote less distracting visual-manual device interfaces. However, the agency shares commenters' concerns about cognitive distraction due to driver use of auditory-vocal interfaces. As noted above in the Consumers Union comments:

If manufacturers incorporate voice-controlled text messaging and social media capabilities in their vehicles instead of visual-manual controls, drivers could end up experiencing a constant and continuous

audio stream of updated information while driving—a substitute that could be very cognitively distracting.

Comments received from the Consumers Union, p. 4. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov

, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0063.

Unfortunately, recognizing the distraction potential of auditory-vocal interfaces is not the same as knowing how to prevent this issue from becoming a problem. NHTSA currently has research under way on this topic and more research is planned, which will be used as a basis for guidelines covering auditory-vocal interfaces.

NHTSA currently has two studies in progress on auditory-vocal device interfaces. One study is a naturalistic examination of cell phone usage with special emphasis on examining cognitive distraction during phone calls. The other study is performing a literature review of past cognitive distraction/auditory-vocal device interface research, preparing a database of a portion of existing devices that have auditory-vocal device interfaces, and developing additional topics (beyond those listed below) for which research should be conducted before the NHTSA Guidelines can be extended to cover auditory-vocal device interfaces.

Our principal planned research foci for upcoming NHTSA auditory-vocal device interfaces are:

• What is a suitable acceptance test for auditory-vocal device interfaces? Based on NHTSA's interpretation of current research, it appears that a detection response paradigm combined with eye glance measurement is likely to work. However, there is a multiplicity of detection response test methods in the literature; NHTSA needs to determine the best one for its purposes.

• What are suitable acceptance criteria for auditory-vocal device interfaces? Once NHTSA has selected its final detection response/eye glance measurement test, the agency needs to determine the values associated with typical driver performance of its reference task (manual radio tuning).

• Is a test of voice recognition accuracy needed? Past testing indicates that an inadequate voice recognition engine can both frustrate and highly distract drivers. However, market pressure may be adequate to force companies into using a sufficiently good voice recognition engine that neither frustrates nor distracts drivers.

• Is guidance from NHTSA on the menu structure of auditory-vocal device interfaces needed? NHTSA is aware that poor menu structures can greatly increase distraction during use of auditory-vocal device interfaces. However, having a suitable acceptance test protocol and criteria may be adequate to prevent this from becoming a problem.

NHTSA's planned auditory-vocal device interface research will take some time to perform. This is why extension of the NHTSA Guidelines to cover auditory-vocal device interfaces was delayed in NHTSA's Driver Distraction Program

until the third phase of guidelines development.

“Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Driver Distraction Program,” DOT HS 811 299, April 2010. Available at

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/811299.pdf.

7. NHTSA's Intentions for Future Updating of Its Guidelines

a. Summary of Comments

Some commenters asked about NHTSA's intentions for future updating of the NHTSA Guidelines. Global Automakers outlined their vision for an ongoing process in the following comments:

Guidelines should be a dynamic, ongoing process, rather than an endpoint as in the typical rulemaking process where a final rule is issued.

Comments received from Global Automakers, p. 2. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov,

Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0099.

* * * we believe a collaborative industry-government effort provides the most constructive approach going forward. Through such an approach NHTSA benefits from the latest industry knowledge and experiences, while allowing automakers to participate in developing the guidelines we are asked to adopt. * * * industry should take a greater role in the ongoing process, since the manufacturers are on the front line of developing new technologies and are directly affected by any failure of the Guidelines to keep abreast of recent developments.

Finally, Global Automakers offered the following pledge of continued involvement:

Ibid, pp. 2-3.

It is our members' intention to continue their efforts to address driver distraction and maintain communication with the agency on this matter well beyond the comment period deadline.

Ibid, p. 2.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) provided a similar vision for ongoing refinement of the Guidelines as new empirical results become available. They refer to the human factors principles that yielded metrics for occlusion and the radio tuning reference task as a point of departure:

We ask that NHTSA work with industry experts to peer review these and other technical aspects of the guidelines to avoid implementing overly restrictive guidelines that will require a quick reaction by the automakers to adhere to the guidelines in their current form, but may evolve to be less restrictive as additional testing and new technologies demonstrate the suitability of less severe guidelines in the future.

Comments received from American Honda Motor Co., Inc., p. 7. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov,

Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0119.

Honda also suggested a more formal approach for ongoing work, which would first involve holding one or more workshops to identify and address unresolved questions about the proposed Guidelines:

After NHTSA issues the final guidelines, Honda requests that NHTSA conduct a technical workshop or perhaps a series of workshops until the remaining questions about the guidelines are resolved. Past technical workshops have been beneficial in assuring a common understanding of guidelines and have helped promote consistent practices among test labs, automakers, and suppliers.

Ibid, p. 8.

The second part of the approach proposed by Honda involves assessing the effectiveness of the guidelines when they have been fully implemented:

Honda recommends that these guidelines include periodic measurement of the effectiveness of the guidelines to assure that they are achieving the intended results.

Ibid, p. 4.

Agero, Inc. also advocated a more holistic process organized around an agency-industry coalition, which would forge a stronger connection between the technical content of the guidelines and its precursors:

One of the first goals of this coalition would be to reach a consensus on the current knowledge gaps and a subsequent research roadmap, followed by a systematic, collaborative, multi-industry process that will arrive at revised guidelines based upon the previous work of the Alliance [of] Automobile Manufacturers and the Society of Automotive Engineers' Voice User Interface Working Group.

Comments received from Agero, Inc., p. 4. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov,

Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0090.

A working group framework will enable a more dynamic and thorough investigation, broaden participation, promote cross-industry consensus, and allow sufficient time to complete critical research and scope potential technology and driver education advancements.

Ibid, p. 8.

b. NHTSA's Response

NHTSA agrees with commenters that the NHTSA Guidelines should be kept up-to-date through a dynamic, ongoing process. The issuance with this notice of the Phase 1 NHTSA Guidelines, while

significant, is only a step in the process of the development of NHTSA's Guidelines. NHTSA intends to take multiple future actions to keep the NHTSA Guidelines up-to-date.

In its April 2010 “Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Driver Distraction Program,”

(NHTSA's Distraction Plan), NHTSA publically committed itself to issuing two more phases of its Driver Distraction Guidelines. Phase 2 will provide recommendations for portable and aftermarket device. Phase 3 will provide recommendations for auditory-vocal interfaces.

“Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Driver Distraction Program,” DOT HS 811 299, April 2010. Available at

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/811299.pdf.

In addition to issuing Guideline notices, NHTSA intends to keep its Guidelines up-to-date through the issuance of Guideline Interpretation letters. These will be similar to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) interpretation letters. All Guideline Interpretation letters will be posted to an appropriate place on NHTSA's Web site so as to be available to all interested parties.

Procedures for requesting an interpretation of the NHTSA Guidelines have been added to the Guidelines.

NHTSA is interested in working with all interested parties to keep the NHTSA Guidelines up-to-date and, to the extent possible, to coordinate future efforts and research. In accordance with commenters' suggestion, we may hold another technical workshop on the Phase 1 Guidelines. To ensure that technical workshops are open to all interested parties, any technical workshop will be announced in advance in the

Federal Register

NHTSA continues to be open to meeting with interested parties that have Guidelines-related concerns or issues that they wish to discuss with us.

Finally, NHTSA will keep open a Driver Distraction Guideline docket for the foreseeable future. However, in accordance with normal NHTSA practice, a new docket number will generally be assigned with each notice announcing updates to the Guidelines. Submissions to the docket are an effective means of transmitting concerns to NHTSA.

8. Reliance on Limited Amount of Research in Developing NHTSA's Guidelines

a. Summary of Comments

Some commenters expressed concern about the reliance on a limited amount of research in developing NHTSA's Guidelines. Two commenters questioned the lack of breadth in the supporting materials cited. The following comment was provided by Dr. Paul Green:

* * * the paucity of citations of other relevant research suggests a narrow view of relevant data, especially given the DOT-supported research is only [a] small fraction of the research * * * on driver distraction.

Comments received from Dr. Paul Green, p. 4. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov,

Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0052.

He provided a number of sources that he thought should be cited, including several NHTSA studies. According to Dr. Green, the consequence of this narrow focus is likely to be the following:

The docket identifies a long-term goal of having these guidelines become an international standard. However if there are no citations of relevant research from Europe and Japan (there may be 1 citation), then acceptance of the NHTSA Guidelines outside of the U.S. becomes difficult.

Ibid, p. 4.

The National Safety Council (NSC) also refers to the narrow range of research cited to support the proposed guidelines:

The decision to release guidelines in three phases, rolled out over many years, with the first phase addressing visual-manual use of electronic devices, is based on the findings of only three studies. Each of these studies has significant limitations. NSC believes that Federal guidelines with the potential to influence the safety of vehicles should be based on a much broader range of research.

Comments received from The National Safety Council, p. 1. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov,

Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 085.

There is no discussion of why the preponderance of non-automobile industry-funded research, and research beyond the NHTSA and FMCSA studies with VTTI, were not drawn upon for these guidelines. It is important to provide an explanation of the reasons for ignoring such a wide body of driver distraction research. There should also be an explanation regarding why the guidelines are based only upon USDOT-funded research without review of the vast body of other research.

Ibid, p. 2.

Toyota Motor North America noted the following limitation of one of the main studies cited by NHTSA:

* * * the 100-Car Study was completed in 2005 and does not include the in-vehicle technologies that are prevalent in our vehicles today.

Comments received from Toyota Motor North America, Inc., p. 3. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov,

Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 092.

The NSC provided the following comments to describe the effect of this problem:

* * * guideline decision making is therefore based on a very small number of crashes and a very limited population observed in these studies, as acknowledged by NHTSA in the guidelines document * * * Thus, crash risk estimates produced by these studies are derived from an extremely small sample of crashes and are clearly not representative. NSC questions whether these crash risk estimates should be accepted to the degree they are, and whether they should form the basis of Federal decision-making.

Comments received from The National Safety Council, p. 2. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov,

Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 085.

b. NHTSA's Response

NHTSA is aware of the vast amount of driver distraction literature beyond the papers and reports referenced in the preamble of the Initial Notice. The Initial Notice preamble was not intended to serve as a comprehensive driver distraction literature review. The research mentioned in the preamble was that necessary to understand the underlying basis for NHTSA's proposed Driver Distraction Guidelines.

Relative to the concerns raised by the NSC and Toyota, NHTSA agrees that the 100-Car Study collected data on a very small number of crashes and a very limited population of drivers. Since data collection for this study was completed in 2005, it was unable to collect data of several in-vehicle technologies prevalent in our vehicles today (e.g., text messaging). However, the 100-Car Study data does provide what NHTSA believes to be the best available estimates of the crash risk of various driver distraction risks for light vehicles that we have today. As discussed earlier in this notice, NHTSA does not want to wait to issue its Phase 1 Guidelines until data from the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) naturalistic data collection becomes available.

NHTSA believes that it has sufficient information to issue Driver Distraction Guidelines immediately that will reduce the driver distraction safety problem. Therefore, NHTSA is proceeding to issue its voluntary driver distraction guidelines immediately with this notice based upon its current research base.

9. Concerns That Updating Vehicle Models to Meet the NHTSA Guidelines Will Be Expensive

a. Summary of Comments

Two automakers (Toyota and Chrysler) disagreed with NHTSA's conclusion about the expected effects of

the Guidelines. The following comment from Toyota Motor North America, Inc. summarizes this concern.

In the notice, NHTSA states that the proposed guidelines would require minor changes to in-vehicle electronic devices; however Toyota's analysis indicates that the majority of our in-vehicle electronic devices will not meet these Guidelines.

Comments received from Toyota Motor North America, Inc., p. 2. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov,

Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 092.

Referring to the same statements in the guidelines proposal, Chrysler Group LLC provided the following comment:

Chrysler conducted an in-depth assessment of the guideline's testing protocols which included user testing of both the eye glance and occlusion methods per NHTSA's proposed guidelines. Based on this assessment using actual participants, Chrysler disagrees with NHTSA's above mentioned conclusion.

Comments received from Chrysler Group LLC, p. 3. Accessed at

www.regulations.gov,

Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 095.

It is likely that most of Chrysler's current in-vehicle systems will require changes to meet the new guidelines requiring significant development costs * * *

Ibid, p. 9.

b. NHTSA's Response

NHTSA emphasizes that its Driver Distraction Guidelines are voluntary and nonbinding and are neither a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) nor regulation. As such, automobile manufacturers are not required to adhere to these recommendations (although NHTSA certainly hopes they will do so) or incur costs as a result. In implementing the recommendations of these Guidelines, m

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.