Notice and Request for Information and Comment on Development and Application of Crash Warning Interface Metrics, 11459-11462 [E8-4004]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 42 / Monday, March 3, 2008 / Notices
SUMMARY: FHWA is issuing this notice
to advise the public that an
Environmental Impact Statement will be
prepared for proposed transportation
improvements in the Tooele Valley area
of Tooele County, Utah.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anthony Sarhan, Area Engineer, Federal
Highway Administration, 2520 West
4700 South, Suite 9A, Salt Lake City,
UT 84118, Telephone: (801) 963–0182;
or Daniel Young, Utah Department of
Transportation (UDOT) Region 2 Project
Manager, 2010 South 2760 West, Salt
Lake City, UT 84104. Telephone: (801)
975–4819.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
FHWA, in cooperation with UDOT and
Tooele County, will prepare an EIS on
a proposal to address current and
projected north-south traffic demand in
the Tooele Valley area of Tooele County.
The proposed project study area is
bounded by Sheep Lane to the west,
SR–36 to the east, the Tooele Army
Depot (TEAD), SR–112, and Tooele City
to the south, and I–80 to the north.
FHWA, UDOT, and Tooele County
implemented an Environmental
Assessment (EA), in May of 2007, in
accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
During the EA, it was determined by the
Joint-Lead Agencies to up-scope the
study to an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
The EIS will conform to the
environmental review process
established in Section 6002 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA–LU). The Section 6002
environmental review process requires
the following activities: the
identification and invitation of
cooperating and participating agencies;
the establishment of a coordination
plan; and opportunities for additional
agency and public comment on the
project’s purpose and need, alternatives
and methodologies for determining
impacts. Additionally, a public hearing
following the release of the draft EIS
will also be provided. Public notice
advertisements and direct mailings will
notify interested parties of the time and
place of public meetings and the public
hearing.
The EIS will take into account all
aspects of the study previously
completed during the Environmental
Assessment process. Scoping letters
describing the proposed action and
soliciting comments were sent to
appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies, and to organizations and
citizens who have previously expressed,
or who are known to have, an interest
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:33 Feb 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
in this proposal. A public scoping
meeting to which agencies and the
public were invited was held on June
13, 2007 in Tooele County. The public,
as well as Federal, State, and local
agencies, were invited to participate in
a project scoping process. From this
participation a number of alternatives
were developed and environmental
issues and resources identified.
FHWA will continue to study and
consider a reasonable range of
alternatives which meet the project
purpose and needs. These alternatives
include (1) Taking no action; (2) Using
alternative travel modes; (3) Upgrading
and adding lanes to the existing
roadway network including SR–36; and
(4) Constructing a highway/expressway
on a new location through the project
study area.
To ensure that the full range of issues
related to this proposed action are
addressed and all significant issues are
identified, comments and suggestions
are invited from all interested agencies
and parties. Cooperating and
participating agency invitation letters
will be sent out following the
publication of the Notice of Intent.
Comments and suggestions concerning
this proposed action and the EIS should
be directed to FHWA at the address
provided above.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20-.205, Highway Planning
and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this
program.)
Issued on: February 26, 2008.
Edward T. Woolford,
Environmental Program Manager, FHWA—
Utah Division.
[FR Doc. E8–3981 Filed 2–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA–2007–0038]
Notice and Request for Information
and Comment on Development and
Application of Crash Warning Interface
Metrics
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
information and comment on
development and application of crash
warning interface metrics.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: During the NHTSA-led
Human Factors Forum on Advanced
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11459
Vehicle Safety Technologies in early
2007, participants from the automobile
industry, government, and academia
gathered to discuss the research
necessary to ensure that future design
and operation of these technologies are
developed with an understanding of the
driver’s ability to use them. Underlying
this objective is a requirement to have
techniques and metrics to quantify how
well drivers can use and benefit from
the technologies. Without common,
reliable, and safety-related metrics, it is
difficult to develop, evaluate, and
compare different systems as well as to
determine the impact of nonstandardized warning interfaces.
To address this issue, NHTSA is
initiating a program to develop a set of
standard metrics and test procedures to
assess the Driver-Vehicle Interface (DVI)
of Advanced Crash Warning Systems
(ACWS). ACWS are technologies to
assist drivers who may be unaware of
impending collisions by alerting them of
potential threats. Examples include
forward collision warnings, lane
departure warnings, and road departure
warnings. The DVI is the means by
which ACWS communicate with drivers
to help them avoid a threat. In order for
ACWS to achieve their intended safety
benefits, drivers need to be able to
quickly understand the ACWS threat
information and respond appropriately
without confusion. The warning timing,
reliability, warning modes, device
controls, and displays are examples of
the DVI characteristics that can affect
the ability of drivers to achieve the
intended safety benefits without
possible adverse consequences. Crash
Warning Interface Metrics (CWIM) are
derived from tests of drivers’
performance using ACWS, indicating
the compatibility of the DVI with
drivers’ capabilities and needs.
This notice invites comments,
suggestions, and recommendations from
all individuals and organizations that
have an interest in the development and
use of Crash Warning Interface Metrics.
NHTSA requests comments to assist the
agency in identifying, evaluating, and
selecting CWIM and associated test
methods for assessing the role of the
DVI in influencing driver performance
with ACWS.
You should submit your
comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not
later than April 17, 2008. Late
comments may be considered.
DATES:
You may submit comments
identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA–2007–0038 by any of the
following methods:
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
11460
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 42 / Monday, March 3, 2008 / Notices
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://wwww.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
M–30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: For detailed instructions
on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the Public Participation heading in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document.
Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78).
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov at any time or to
West Building, Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Traube, Office of Human Vehicle
Performance Research, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone
number: 202–366–5673; E-mail
Eric.Traube@dot.gov.
One
recent development in vehicle safety
technology has been the introduction of
Advanced Crash Warning Systems
(ACWS). These systems alert drivers
about emerging hazardous situations
using auditory, visual, or haptic
warnings. In some cases, limited vehicle
control action, such as braking or
steering, are initiated to alert drivers to
respond. Systems that do not warn or
provide some type of feedback to the
driver would not be considered ACWS.
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:33 Feb 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
Examples of ACWS include (but are not
limited to) road departure warnings,
lane change (blind spot) warnings,
adaptive cruise control, curve speed
warnings, and forward collision
warnings.
While the implementation of ACWS
in production vehicles appears to be
increasing, the question remains as to
whether ACWS will produce significant
safety improvements or will introduce
unforeseen problems, particularly if
drivers are unfamiliar with ACWS
warnings. The NHTSA-sponsored
Human Factors Forum on Advanced
Vehicle Safety Technologies was held in
2007 to begin to address this issue.
A key to ACWS effectiveness is the
quality of its interface, which can affect
the driver’s performance as well as
acceptance of the technology. The
interface of an ACWS consists of the
controls that drivers use to adjust the
system operation and any visual,
auditory, or haptic warnings as well as
operational cues that can influence
driver actions. Whether drivers will be
able to effectively utilize this feedback
to avoid crashes may be determined
through tests that measure various
aspects of driver/vehicle response, such
as brake reaction time, gas pedal release
time, brake force, threat recognition,
response appropriateness, eye glance
behaviors, etc. Because different
manufacturers employ different test
protocols, measures, and criteria to
determine the design of the DriverVehicle Interface (DVI), a variety of
interfaces have been proposed and in
some cases deployed in production
vehicles.
The Forum’s focus on driver centered
design highlighted the importance of
these issues. Attendees stressed that
future research should determine how
to assess if drivers understand the
system, if the system leads to
appropriate driver reactions, and if
drivers accept the new systems. Other
discussion focused on the unintended
consequences—understanding how
inadequate mental models may affect
safety and how design can strengthen
those models. In addition, discussion
addressed research needs related to
integration of interfaces when several
warning systems are installed. Other
topics included the question of
designing interfaces compatible with the
capabilities of the majority of the
driving population and compatible with
each other. The later is where the topic
of interface standardization was
addressed as an approach to minimize
driver confusion.
Without a meaningful basis for
evaluating the driver/vehicle interface,
the research topics suggested at the
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Forum would be difficult to resolve. In
order to better evaluate and compare
different ACWS interfaces, NHTSA has
initiated a major research effort to
develop human factors test protocols
and related metrics of driver/system
performance that will form the basis for
a set of crash warning interface metrics
(CWIM). The development of CWIM
will benefit public safety by helping to
identify effective ACWS. Secondly,
CWIM will help to assess the whether
lack of standardization of ACWS
interface characteristics could confuse
drivers and compromise system
effectiveness. The issues of
standardization and CWIM are
interrelated because without metrics,
the effects of non-standardized DVIs on
driver performance cannot be
objectively assessed. In addition,
NHTSA may use results from the CWIM
project to enhance test procedures
developed under the Advanced Crash
Avoidance Technology program and
other ongoing activities.
NHTSA requests comments to assist
the agency in identifying, evaluating,
and selecting CWIM and associated test
methods for assessing the role of the
DVI in influencing driver performance
with ACWS. The agency is interested in
comments related to both the scientific
merit of different metrics as well as the
practical or institutional considerations
for end users of CWIM.
While the research effort is making
use of published research, guidelines,
standards, and other materials, it will
benefit greatly from the experience and
opinion of various stakeholder groups,
who face related issues. Therefore, we
hope to receive comments that will
reflect lessons learned, new ideas and
approaches, criteria for optimal
methods, practical concerns in
application, and other information
unlikely to be reflected in published
literature. Responses to this notice may
also help to provide greater consistency
with current practice and assure
maximum usefulness.
The following are some of the key
issues that the agency would like
commenters to address. In addition to
general comments, the agency requests
submission of documents, studies, test
protocols, or references relevant to the
issues.
A. Potential Measures and Procedures
(A1) What techniques, metrics, and
criteria are now being used by vehicle
manufacturers for developing and
evaluating the human factor aspects of
interface design and operation of ACWS
at various stages of product
development? What tools and
environments (e.g. simulators, test
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 42 / Monday, March 3, 2008 / Notices
tracks, etc.) are used to evaluate DVIs?
Are there ‘‘lessons learned’’ regarding
their use, practicality, or acceptance?
What measures and procedures are the
most predictive of relevant safety
parameters?
(A2) To what extent are DVI
assessment techniques shared industrywide and to what extent are these
methods proprietary? What performance
requirements, standards or guidance
documents have been used by vehicle
manufacturers and/or system suppliers
to address the human factors aspects of
the design and evaluation of CWIM for
ACWS? Are they helpful? What are their
limitations?
(A3) If various functions (e.g.,
Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC), Frontal
Crash Warning (FCW), Lane Departure
Warning (LDW)) are packaged together
as an integrated in-vehicle system, can
CWIM be applied individually to each
function or is there a need to treat each
function in the context of the other
functions present as well as other
aspects of vehicle design? How can or
should this be done? Are there common
metrics and protocols that can be used
to assess several ACWS?
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
B. Evaluation of CWIM
(B1) What criteria should be used to
determine the most sensitive, reliable,
relevant, and useful metrics?
(B2) If consumers are annoyed or
otherwise dislike the system, they may
turn it off or not purchase it. How
should consumer acceptance or driver
annoyance be evaluated with respect to
their influence on system effectiveness?
(B3) Driver response to ACWS can
vary from person to person. Even the
same person can vary in performance
depending on their state of mind, e.g.,
drowsy or distracted. What subsets of
the population need to be included in
developing criteria for CWIM? How
should their needs and capabilities be
integrated into the assessment?
(B4) What type of evaluation of the
DVI is being done or should be done to
follow up on driver performance with
production systems and its implication
for the validity of CWIM?
C. Applying CWIM
(C1) CWIM may be used by suppliers,
vehicle manufacturers, and the
Government to design, evaluate, and
compare usability and potential safety
implications of ACWS. However,
protocols that are too complicated or
costly may be difficult to implement.
Protocols that are perceived as invalid
or not sensitive to different
characteristics of interface design may
not be used. What are the practical
considerations that need to be factored
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:33 Feb 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
into the development of metrics and
related test protocols to make them
useful and also acceptable to those who
must apply the methods? What factors
should be considered in the choice of
test equipment (e.g., simulators, test
tracks, vehicle instrumentation) needed
to collect driver data?
(C2) As the number of ACWS
increases in the vehicle fleet, the lack of
standardization of the DVI among
different vehicle makes and models may
increase the likelihood of driver
confusion in responding to the warning
information intended to assist the
driver. This lack of standardized design
and operation of ACWS may reduce the
safety benefits of these technologies.
What mechanism (e.g., voluntary
standards promulgated by SAE, ISO, or
NHTSA or mandatory standards set
forth in the FMVSS, etc.) should be used
to standardize CWIM? How can
standardization be balanced against
restricting innovation? What test
procedures and metrics can be applied
to objectively evaluate the need for
standardization? What criteria should be
used to judge the need for
standardization?
(C3) How should the criteria for
acceptability be determined; that is,
what determines if a DVI is ‘‘good
enough’’? Also, how should the metrics
be calibrated to determine if differences
between measured values are of
practical significance?
D. Research Needs
(D1) What research or other steps are
required to identify CWIM and establish
their validity as a basis for assessment?
(D2) What is the best way to
encourage and coordinate international
harmonized research on CWIM?
Public Participation
A. How do I prepare and submit
comments?
Your comments must be written and
in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your
comments.
Your primary comments must not be
more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR
553.21). However, you may attach
additional documents to your primary
comments. There is no limit on the
length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your
comments, including the attachments,
to Docket Management at the address
given above under ADDRESSES.
Comments may also be submitted to
the docket electronically on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11461
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
B. How can I be sure my comments were
received?
If you wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your
comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope
containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by
mail.
C. How do I submit confidential
business information?
If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, send
three copies of your complete
submission, including the information
you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Include a cover letter supplying the
information specified in our
confidential business information
regulation (49 CFR part 512).
In addition, send two copies from
which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information to
Docket Management at the address
given above under ADDRESSES, or submit
them electronically through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov.
D. Will the agency consider late
comments?
We will consider all comments that
Docket Management receives before the
close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above under
DATES. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments that Docket
Management receives after that date.
E. How can I read the comments
submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received
by the Docket Management at the
address given under ADDRESSES. The
hours of the Docket are indicated above
in the same location. To read the
comments on the Internet, go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket.
Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue
to file relevant information on the
docket as it becomes available. Further,
some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you
periodically check the docket for new
material.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
11462
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 42 / Monday, March 3, 2008 / Notices
Issued on February 26, 2008.
Joseph N. Kanianthra,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety
Research.
[FR Doc. E8–4004 Filed 2–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–69–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2007–28734; Notice 2]
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Grant of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
DaimlerChrysler Corporation (DCC) 1
has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2007 motor vehicles do not
comply with paragraph S4.3(d) of 49
CFR 571.110, Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire
Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles
With a GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms
(10,000 pounds) or Less. DCC filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR
Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports identifying
approximately 3,037 MY 2007 Dodge
Dakota (Dakota) pickup trucks produced
between May 8, 2006 and March 16,
2007 that do not comply with the
paragraph of FMVSS No. 110 cited
above.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and the rule implementing
those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556,
DCC has petitioned for an exemption
from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301
on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the petition was
published, with a 30-day public
comment period, on October 4, 2007 in
the Federal Register (72 FR 56824). No
comments were received. To view the
petition and all supporting documents,
log on to the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2007–
28734.’’
For further information on this
decision, contact Mr. John Finneran,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–0645, facsimile (202) 366–
7097.
Paragraph S4.3(d) of FMVSS No. 110
requires in pertinent part that:
S4.3 Placard. Each vehicle, except for a
trailer or incomplete vehicle, shall show the
1 Now
known as Chrysler, LLC.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:33 Feb 29, 2008
Jkt 214001
information specified in S4.3 (a) through (g),
* * *
(d) Tire size designation, indicated by the
headings ‘‘size’’ or ‘‘original tire size’’ or
‘‘original size,’’ and ‘‘spare tire’’ or ‘‘spare,’’
for the tires installed at the time of the first
purchase for purposes other than resale. For
full size spare tires, the statement ‘‘see
above’’ may, at the manufacturer’s option
replace the tire size designation. If no spare
tire is provided, the word ‘‘none’’ must
replace the tire size designation; * * *
By way of background, DCC explains
that MY 2006 Dakotas were equipped
with five P265/65R17 tires—the four
tires installed on the vehicle at time of
sale and the spare tire. The vehicle
placard on the MY 2006 Dakota
accurately reflected the sizes of the tires.
DCC further explained that they decided
to equip the subsequent MY 2007
Dakota with P265/60R18 tires. However,
prior to the actual launch of the MY
2007 vehicles, DCC discovered that a
P265/60R18 tire would not fit properly
in the spare tire location on the vehicle.
Therefore, DCC decided to retain the
P265/65R17 tire as the spare tire, while
going forward with the decision to use
P265/60R18 tires as in-service original
equipment. Unfortunately, the vehicle
placards affixed to the subject MY 2007
Dakotas were not revised to reflect the
decision to use the P265/65R17 spare
tire; therefore, the vehicles do not
comply with S4.3(d).
DCC argues that the noncompliance,
the erroneous designation of the size of
the spare tire on the vehicle placard,
does not have any adverse safety
impact. In DCC’s estimation, the P265/
60R18 tire and the P265/65R17 tire are
equivalent. It supports this estimation
by stating that the recommended cold
tire inflation pressure specified on the
vehicle placard—240 kPa (35 psi)—is
appropriate for either P265/60R18 or
P265/65R17 tires when mounted for
service on the Dakota, and that the Tire
& Rim Association Handbook confirms
that the P265/65R17 spare tire supplied
with the vehicles can carry more weight
at 35 psi (2,124 pounds) than the P265/
60R18 tire referred to on the erroneous
vehicle placard (2,064 pounds).
DCC states that all other information
provided on the 2007 Dakota vehicle
placard is correct.
In summation, DCC states that it has
corrected the problem that caused these
errors so that they will not be repeated
in future production and that it believes
that because the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
that no corrective action is warranted.
NHTSA Decision
NHTSA agrees with DCC that the
erroneous designation of the size of the
spare tire on the placard affixed to the
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
subject vehicles does not have any
adverse safety implications. The intent
of FMVSS No. 110 is to ensure that
vehicles are equipped with tires
appropriate to handle maximum vehicle
loads and prevent overloading. The
subject 2007 Dodge Dakota pickup
trucks are equipped with four P265/
60R18 tires that have a load rating of
2,064 pounds (de-rated by 1.1 when
inflated to the recommended inflation
pressure of 35 psi listed on the vehicle
placard required by FMVSS No. 110).
As required by FMVSS No. 110, these
tires are appropriate for the vehicle’s
stated front and rear gross axle weight
ratings. The same P265/60R18 tire size
is listed on the placard for the spare tire.
The actual spare tire provided with the
vehicle is a P265/65R17. This tire has
more load carrying capability, 2,124
pounds (de-rated by 1.1 at 35 psi), than
the P265/60R18 tires. Both the actual
provided spare tire and the spare tire
indicated on the vehicle placard meet
the FMVSS No. 110 loading
requirements at the recommended cold
inflation pressure of 35 psi. DCC is not
aware of any customer complaints or
field reports relating to this issue and
stated that it has corrected the problem
that caused these errors so that they will
not be repeated in future production.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that DCC has met
its burden of persuasion that the
labeling noncompliances described are
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, DCC’s petition is granted
and the petitioner is exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of,
and a remedy for, the noncompliances
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and
501.8.
Issued on: February 26, 2008.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E8–4045 Filed 2–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2007–28769; Notice 2]
Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
Ford Motor Company (Ford) has
determined that approximately 180,603
seat belt replacement assemblies for
2000 through 2004 model year Ford
Focus passenger cars and 191,352
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 42 (Monday, March 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11459-11462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4004]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0038]
Notice and Request for Information and Comment on Development and
Application of Crash Warning Interface Metrics
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for information and comment on development
and application of crash warning interface metrics.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: During the NHTSA-led Human Factors Forum on Advanced Vehicle
Safety Technologies in early 2007, participants from the automobile
industry, government, and academia gathered to discuss the research
necessary to ensure that future design and operation of these
technologies are developed with an understanding of the driver's
ability to use them. Underlying this objective is a requirement to have
techniques and metrics to quantify how well drivers can use and benefit
from the technologies. Without common, reliable, and safety-related
metrics, it is difficult to develop, evaluate, and compare different
systems as well as to determine the impact of non-standardized warning
interfaces.
To address this issue, NHTSA is initiating a program to develop a
set of standard metrics and test procedures to assess the Driver-
Vehicle Interface (DVI) of Advanced Crash Warning Systems (ACWS). ACWS
are technologies to assist drivers who may be unaware of impending
collisions by alerting them of potential threats. Examples include
forward collision warnings, lane departure warnings, and road departure
warnings. The DVI is the means by which ACWS communicate with drivers
to help them avoid a threat. In order for ACWS to achieve their
intended safety benefits, drivers need to be able to quickly understand
the ACWS threat information and respond appropriately without
confusion. The warning timing, reliability, warning modes, device
controls, and displays are examples of the DVI characteristics that can
affect the ability of drivers to achieve the intended safety benefits
without possible adverse consequences. Crash Warning Interface Metrics
(CWIM) are derived from tests of drivers' performance using ACWS,
indicating the compatibility of the DVI with drivers' capabilities and
needs.
This notice invites comments, suggestions, and recommendations from
all individuals and organizations that have an interest in the
development and use of Crash Warning Interface Metrics. NHTSA requests
comments to assist the agency in identifying, evaluating, and selecting
CWIM and associated test methods for assessing the role of the DVI in
influencing driver performance with ACWS.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than April 17, 2008. Late
comments may be considered.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2007-0038 by any of the following methods:
[[Page 11460]]
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
wwww.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Traube, Office of Human Vehicle
Performance Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone number:
202-366-5673; E-mail Eric.Traube@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: One recent development in vehicle safety
technology has been the introduction of Advanced Crash Warning Systems
(ACWS). These systems alert drivers about emerging hazardous situations
using auditory, visual, or haptic warnings. In some cases, limited
vehicle control action, such as braking or steering, are initiated to
alert drivers to respond. Systems that do not warn or provide some type
of feedback to the driver would not be considered ACWS. Examples of
ACWS include (but are not limited to) road departure warnings, lane
change (blind spot) warnings, adaptive cruise control, curve speed
warnings, and forward collision warnings.
While the implementation of ACWS in production vehicles appears to
be increasing, the question remains as to whether ACWS will produce
significant safety improvements or will introduce unforeseen problems,
particularly if drivers are unfamiliar with ACWS warnings. The NHTSA-
sponsored Human Factors Forum on Advanced Vehicle Safety Technologies
was held in 2007 to begin to address this issue.
A key to ACWS effectiveness is the quality of its interface, which
can affect the driver's performance as well as acceptance of the
technology. The interface of an ACWS consists of the controls that
drivers use to adjust the system operation and any visual, auditory, or
haptic warnings as well as operational cues that can influence driver
actions. Whether drivers will be able to effectively utilize this
feedback to avoid crashes may be determined through tests that measure
various aspects of driver/vehicle response, such as brake reaction
time, gas pedal release time, brake force, threat recognition, response
appropriateness, eye glance behaviors, etc. Because different
manufacturers employ different test protocols, measures, and criteria
to determine the design of the Driver-Vehicle Interface (DVI), a
variety of interfaces have been proposed and in some cases deployed in
production vehicles.
The Forum's focus on driver centered design highlighted the
importance of these issues. Attendees stressed that future research
should determine how to assess if drivers understand the system, if the
system leads to appropriate driver reactions, and if drivers accept the
new systems. Other discussion focused on the unintended consequences--
understanding how inadequate mental models may affect safety and how
design can strengthen those models. In addition, discussion addressed
research needs related to integration of interfaces when several
warning systems are installed. Other topics included the question of
designing interfaces compatible with the capabilities of the majority
of the driving population and compatible with each other. The later is
where the topic of interface standardization was addressed as an
approach to minimize driver confusion.
Without a meaningful basis for evaluating the driver/vehicle
interface, the research topics suggested at the Forum would be
difficult to resolve. In order to better evaluate and compare different
ACWS interfaces, NHTSA has initiated a major research effort to develop
human factors test protocols and related metrics of driver/system
performance that will form the basis for a set of crash warning
interface metrics (CWIM). The development of CWIM will benefit public
safety by helping to identify effective ACWS. Secondly, CWIM will help
to assess the whether lack of standardization of ACWS interface
characteristics could confuse drivers and compromise system
effectiveness. The issues of standardization and CWIM are interrelated
because without metrics, the effects of non-standardized DVIs on driver
performance cannot be objectively assessed. In addition, NHTSA may use
results from the CWIM project to enhance test procedures developed
under the Advanced Crash Avoidance Technology program and other ongoing
activities.
NHTSA requests comments to assist the agency in identifying,
evaluating, and selecting CWIM and associated test methods for
assessing the role of the DVI in influencing driver performance with
ACWS. The agency is interested in comments related to both the
scientific merit of different metrics as well as the practical or
institutional considerations for end users of CWIM.
While the research effort is making use of published research,
guidelines, standards, and other materials, it will benefit greatly
from the experience and opinion of various stakeholder groups, who face
related issues. Therefore, we hope to receive comments that will
reflect lessons learned, new ideas and approaches, criteria for optimal
methods, practical concerns in application, and other information
unlikely to be reflected in published literature. Responses to this
notice may also help to provide greater consistency with current
practice and assure maximum usefulness.
The following are some of the key issues that the agency would like
commenters to address. In addition to general comments, the agency
requests submission of documents, studies, test protocols, or
references relevant to the issues.
A. Potential Measures and Procedures
(A1) What techniques, metrics, and criteria are now being used by
vehicle manufacturers for developing and evaluating the human factor
aspects of interface design and operation of ACWS at various stages of
product development? What tools and environments (e.g. simulators, test
[[Page 11461]]
tracks, etc.) are used to evaluate DVIs? Are there ``lessons learned''
regarding their use, practicality, or acceptance? What measures and
procedures are the most predictive of relevant safety parameters?
(A2) To what extent are DVI assessment techniques shared industry-
wide and to what extent are these methods proprietary? What performance
requirements, standards or guidance documents have been used by vehicle
manufacturers and/or system suppliers to address the human factors
aspects of the design and evaluation of CWIM for ACWS? Are they
helpful? What are their limitations?
(A3) If various functions (e.g., Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC),
Frontal Crash Warning (FCW), Lane Departure Warning (LDW)) are packaged
together as an integrated in-vehicle system, can CWIM be applied
individually to each function or is there a need to treat each function
in the context of the other functions present as well as other aspects
of vehicle design? How can or should this be done? Are there common
metrics and protocols that can be used to assess several ACWS?
B. Evaluation of CWIM
(B1) What criteria should be used to determine the most sensitive,
reliable, relevant, and useful metrics?
(B2) If consumers are annoyed or otherwise dislike the system, they
may turn it off or not purchase it. How should consumer acceptance or
driver annoyance be evaluated with respect to their influence on system
effectiveness?
(B3) Driver response to ACWS can vary from person to person. Even
the same person can vary in performance depending on their state of
mind, e.g., drowsy or distracted. What subsets of the population need
to be included in developing criteria for CWIM? How should their needs
and capabilities be integrated into the assessment?
(B4) What type of evaluation of the DVI is being done or should be
done to follow up on driver performance with production systems and its
implication for the validity of CWIM?
C. Applying CWIM
(C1) CWIM may be used by suppliers, vehicle manufacturers, and the
Government to design, evaluate, and compare usability and potential
safety implications of ACWS. However, protocols that are too
complicated or costly may be difficult to implement. Protocols that are
perceived as invalid or not sensitive to different characteristics of
interface design may not be used. What are the practical considerations
that need to be factored into the development of metrics and related
test protocols to make them useful and also acceptable to those who
must apply the methods? What factors should be considered in the choice
of test equipment (e.g., simulators, test tracks, vehicle
instrumentation) needed to collect driver data?
(C2) As the number of ACWS increases in the vehicle fleet, the lack
of standardization of the DVI among different vehicle makes and models
may increase the likelihood of driver confusion in responding to the
warning information intended to assist the driver. This lack of
standardized design and operation of ACWS may reduce the safety
benefits of these technologies. What mechanism (e.g., voluntary
standards promulgated by SAE, ISO, or NHTSA or mandatory standards set
forth in the FMVSS, etc.) should be used to standardize CWIM? How can
standardization be balanced against restricting innovation? What test
procedures and metrics can be applied to objectively evaluate the need
for standardization? What criteria should be used to judge the need for
standardization?
(C3) How should the criteria for acceptability be determined; that
is, what determines if a DVI is ``good enough''? Also, how should the
metrics be calibrated to determine if differences between measured
values are of practical significance?
D. Research Needs
(D1) What research or other steps are required to identify CWIM and
establish their validity as a basis for assessment?
(D2) What is the best way to encourage and coordinate international
harmonized research on CWIM?
Public Participation
A. How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR
553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary
comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
B. How can I be sure my comments were received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
C. How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission,
including the information you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information to Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES, or submit them electronically
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
D. Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
E. How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by the Docket Management at the
address given under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated
above in the same location. To read the comments on the Internet, go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information on the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.
[[Page 11462]]
Issued on February 26, 2008.
Joseph N. Kanianthra,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. E8-4004 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-69-P
