Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices, 24817-24890 [2013-09883]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 81 (Friday, April 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24817-24890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09883]



[[Page 24817]]

Vol. 78

Friday,

No. 81

April 26, 2013

Part II





Department of Transportation





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





National Highway Traffic Safety Administration





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





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

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 81 / Friday, April 26, 2013 / 
Notices

[[Page 24818]]


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

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

[[Page 24819]]

    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'' \1\ 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'' \2\ which was released in 
April 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving,'' DOT HS 811 629, 
June 2012. Accessed at: https://www.distraction.gov/download/campaign-materials/8747-811629-060712-v5-Opt1-Web-tag.pdf.
    \2\ ``Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's Driver Distraction Program,'' DOT HS 811 299, April 
2010. Accessed at https://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

[[Page 24820]]

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 \3\) 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 \4\ proposing these Guidelines and 
soliciting comments on them that was published on February 24, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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, TrademarkTM and Registered[supreg] 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.\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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

[[Page 24821]]

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.
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] 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.
    [cir] 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

[[Page 24822]]

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

[[Page 24823]]

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) \6\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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) \7\ and the National Automotive 
Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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.
    \8\ 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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Police-Reported    Police-Reported
                                                          Police-Reported   Crashes Involving  Crashes Involving
                                      Number of  Police- Crashes Involving     a Distracted       a Distracted
                Year                  Reported  Crashes     a Distracted     Driver Using  an   Driver Using an
                                                               Driver           Integrated     Electronic Device
                                                                             Control/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 or 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

[[Page 24824]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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.
    \10\ 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.
    \11\ 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.
    \12\ 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.
    \13\ 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.\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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\15\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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 \16\ and the 
Naturalistic Truck Driving Study.\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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.
    \17\ 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

[[Page 24825]]

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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26AP13.000

    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

[[Page 24826]]

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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Information on NHTSA's efforts to address this problem can 
be found at https://www.distraction.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 2012, NHTSA released a ``Blueprint for Ending Distracted 
Driving.'' \19\ This is an update of the ``Overview of the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Driver Distraction Program,'' 
\20\ 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.'' \21\ NHTSA's work to eliminate driver distraction-
related crashes consists of four main initiatives:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ``Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving,'' DOT HS 811 
629, June 2012. Accessed at: https://www.distraction.gov/download/campaign-materials/8747-811629-060712-v5-Opt1-Web-tag.pdf.
    \20\ ``Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's Driver Distraction Program,'' DOT HS 811 299, April 
2010. Accessed at https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/811299.pdf.
    \21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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.
    \23\ 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.
    \24\ 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.
    \25\ 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.'' \26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ ``Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's Driver Distraction Program,'' DOT HS 811 299, April 
2010. Available at https://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

[[Page 24827]]

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 \27\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ ``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 \28\) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 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 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.

[[Page 24828]]

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
    [cir] NHTSA Should Issue a FMVSS Instead of Guidelines
    [cir] The Alliance Guidelines Adequately Address Distraction
    [cir] Suggestions to Wait for Better Data or Additional Research to 
be Completed
    [cir] Suggestions for Using Voluntary Consensus Standards as a 
Basis for Developing NHTSA's Guidelines
    [cir] NHTSA Should Publish the Phase 2 Guidelines Applicable to 
Portable and Aftermarket Devices as Soon as Possible
    [cir] NHTSA Should Develop the Phase 3 Guidelines to Address 
Cognitive Distraction and Voice Interfaces as Soon as Possible

[[Page 24829]]

    [cir] NHTSA's Intentions for Future Updating of its Guidelines
    [cir] Concerns about NHTSA's Apparent Reliance on Limited Amount of 
Research in Developing NHTSA's Guidelines
    [cir] Concerns that Updating Vehicle Models To Meet the NHTSA 
Guidelines will be Expensive
    [cir] Concerns About the NHTSA Guidelines Preventing ``911'' 
Emergency Calls
    [cir] Concerns About the NHTSA Guidelines Preventing Passenger Use 
of Electronic Devices
    [cir] Comments on Daytime Running Lights as a Major Cause of Driver 
Distraction
     Issues Specific to the NHTSA Guidelines Stated Purpose
    [cir] Concern That Failure to Meet the NHTSA Guidelines Could 
Result in Enforcement Action
    [cir] NHTSA's Monitoring of Vehicles' Conformance to its Guidelines
    [cir] Questions on Whether Automakers have to Perform Testing as 
Described in the NHTSA Guidelines?
    [cir] Lead Time for the NHTSA Guidelines
     Issues Relating to the Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines
    [cir] Inclusion of Conventional Electronic Devices and Heating, 
Ventilation, and Air Conditioning in Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines
    [cir] Confusion About Limiting Scope of NHTSA Guidelines to Non-
Driving Activities
    [cir] Suggestions to Expand Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines to Cover 
Medium and Heavy Trucks and Buses
    [cir] Request That Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines Exclude Emergency 
Response Vehicles
    [cir] Request That Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines Not Include 
Displays Required by Other Government Bodies
     Definition of Driving and Lock Out Conditions
    [cir] Automatic Transmission Vehicles--In Park Versus At or Above 5 
mph
    [cir] Definition of Driving for Manual Transmission Vehicles
     Comments About Per Se Lock Out of Devices, Functions, and/
or Tasks
    [cir] The NHTSA Guidelines Should Not Recommend Per Se Lock Outs of 
Devices, Functions, and/or Tasks
    [cir] Per Se Lock Out Relating to Reading
    [cir] Per Se Lock Out of Manual Text Entry
    [cir] Per Se Lock Out of Static Graphical and Photographic Images
    [cir] Per Se Lock Out of Displaying Video Images--Dynamic Maps
    [cir] Per Se Lock Out of Displaying Video--Trailer Hitching
    [cir] Per Se Lock Out of Automatically Scrolling Lists and Text
    [cir] 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
    [cir] Suggestions for Other Acceptance Test Protocols
    [cir] Concerns About the Use of Radio Tuning as Reference Task
    [cir] NHTSA Has Not Shown That Tasks With TEORTs Longer Than 12 
Seconds are Less Safe
    [cir] Suggestions for More Stringent Task Acceptance Criteria
    [cir] Concerns Expressed About Long Eye Glances
    [cir] Eye Glance Measurement Issues
    [cir] Occlusion Acceptance Test Criteria Issues
    [cir] Suggestions to Include Effects of Workload Managers in Task 
Acceptance Criteria
     Definition of Goal, Dependent Task, and Subtask
     Driving Simulator Issues
    [cir] Driving Simulator Specifications
    [cir] Suggestions to Improve the Driving Scenario
     Test Participant Issues
    [cir] Test Participant Demographics
    [cir] Test Participant Impartiality
    [cir] Other Test Participant Qualifications
    [cir] Test Participant Instructions, Training, and Practice
     Device Response Time Recommendations
     Downward Viewing Angle Issues
     Miscellaneous Issues
    [cir] Concerns About Recommendation That Drivers Should Have One 
Free Hand
    [cir] Concerns About Device Sound Level Control Recommendations
    [cir] 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.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 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.\30\ 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.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 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).)''
    \31\ Comments received from the Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety, p. 6. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-
0053, Document Number 0069.


[[Page 24830]]


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

    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.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 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.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 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.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 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.

[[Page 24831]]

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.\35\

    \35\ 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.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 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,\37\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 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.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 77 FR 11207-11211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA believes that Federal driver distraction guidelines are also 
necessary

[[Page 24832]]

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,\39\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 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,'' \40\ (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 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.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Information taken from the SHRP2 Web site. Accessed on July 
5, 2012 at https://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

[[Page 24833]]

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.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 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.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 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,

[[Page 24834]]

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.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 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.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 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.\46\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 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

[[Page 24835]]

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.\47\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 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.\48\

    \48\ 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.\49\

    \49\ 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.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Comments received from the Consumers Union, p. 2. Accessed 
at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 
0063.

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

[[Page 24836]]

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,'' \51\ (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ ``Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's Driver Distraction Program,'' DOT HS 811 299, April 
2010. Available at https://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.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 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.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Ibid, p. 5.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) also expressed concern

[[Page 24837]]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 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.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 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.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 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.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 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.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 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,'' \59\ and that ``* * * 
natural-language speech systems present real potential to mitigate 
driver distraction.'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Comments received from Agero Inc., p. 3. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0090.
    \60\ 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

[[Page 24838]]

audio stream of updated information while driving--a substitute that 
could be very cognitively distracting.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 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 \62\ until the third phase of guidelines 
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ ``Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's Driver Distraction Program,'' DOT HS 811 299, April 
2010. Available at https://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.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 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.\64\

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

    \64\ 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.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 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.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 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.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 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.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 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.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 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.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 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

[[Page 24839]]

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,'' \71\ (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ ``Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's Driver Distraction Program,'' DOT HS 811 299, April 
2010. Available at https://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.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 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.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 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.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 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.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 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.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 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.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 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

[[Page 24840]]

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.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 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.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 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 * * * \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 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, manufacturers are 
free to do so in the most cost effective manner.
    Additionally, all members of the Alliance have committed themselves 
to producing vehicles that meet the Alliance Guidelines. Most of the 
recommendations in the Alliance Guidelines are carried over into the 
NHTSA Guidelines unchanged. However, the NHTSA Guidelines are more 
stringent than the Alliance Guidelines in two major areas:
     NHTSA has added three per se lock outs: ``displaying 
images,'' ``manual text entry,'' and ``displaying text to be read.''
     NHTSA is not including Alliance Principle 2.1 Alternative 
B, an alternative protocol for evaluating distraction, in our list of 
recommended acceptance test protocols.
     NHTSA has increased the stringency of the eye glance-
related acceptance test criteria to correct a statistics error made 
during development of the Alliance Guidelines. (This is discussed in 
detail later in this notice.) For the Eye Glance Measurement on a 
Driving Simulator acceptance test protocol, the maximum acceptable 
total eyes-off-road time (TEORT) has been reduced from 20 seconds to 12 
seconds and a second criterion limiting long eye glances away from the 
road has been added. For the Occlusion acceptance test protocol, the 
Total Shutter Open Time (TSOT) has been reduced from 15 seconds to 12 
seconds. Therefore, tasks that meet the Alliance Guidelines Principle 
2.1 Alternative A acceptance criteria (based on eye glances) may not 
meet the acceptance criteria contained in the NHTSA Guidelines.
    Despite these more stringent aspects, NHTSA believes that vehicles 
currently meeting the Alliance Guidelines should meet or be close to 
meeting all of the recommendations of the NHTSA Guidelines. However, we 
do understand that the differences and increased stringency of the 
NHTSA Guidelines may lead some manufacturers to engage in additional 
design work. As discussed below in Section IV.B.4, NHTSA believes that 
manufacturers choosing to implement these NHTSA Guidelines for existing 
vehicle models would likely make any needed changes to meet these 
Guidelines when a vehicle model undergoes a major revision, thus 
minimizing the need to redesign existing designs and allow 
incorporation of any necessary research and/or conformance testing into 
the normal vehicle production cycle. Accordingly, we do not expect 
manufacturers to incur significant additional redesign costs to conform 
to the NHTSA Guidelines because any necessary changes would be made 
during the normal vehicle production cycle.
    Based on comments from vehicle manufacturers, we believe that a 
substantial portion of the industry's concerns about the costs of 
meeting the NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines are based either on 
parts of the Guidelines where NHTSA did not clearly express what it 
recommended or on industry misunderstandings of what NHTSA meant. NHTSA 
has worked to improve the clarity of the NHTSA Driver Distraction 
Guidelines being issued with this notice.
10. Concerns About the NHTSA Guidelines Preventing ``911'' Emergency 
Calls
a. Summary of Comments
    Several individual commenters expressed concern that the 
recommendations of the NHTSA Guidelines might prevent drivers from 
making emergency phone calls to ``911'' while driving.
b. NHTSA's Response
    The recommendations of the Phase 1 NHTSA Guidelines should have no 
impact on the driver's ability to place an emergency call to ``911'' 
while driving.
    Based on the recommended definition of ``task'' contained in the 
NHTSA Guidelines, making an emergency call to ``911'' comprises the 
following three tasks:
     Activating/opening a phone (the Phase 1 Guidelines only 
cover one that is built-in to the vehicle), dialing ``911,'' and 
pressing the ``Send'' or ``Talk'' button. NHTSA research \81\ has found 
that drivers can activate/open a phone, dial up to seven digits, and 
press the ``Send'' or ``Talk'' button before exceeding the task 
acceptance criteria of the NHTSA Guidelines. Since dialing ``911'' only 
requires three digits to be dialed, this task can be accomplished by 
drivers while driving under these Guideline recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Mazzae, E.N., Martin, J., 
and Smith, L.A., ``Driver Behavior During Visual-Manual Secondary 
Task Performance: Occlusion Method Versus Simulated Driving,'' NHTSA 
Technical Report (in press), accessible at https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2010-0053-0077, April 
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Talking and listening to the ``911'' Emergency Operator. 
This is not covered by the NHTSA Guidelines.
     Hanging up the phone. Again, NHTSA research has found that 
this task can be accomplished by drivers while driving under these 
Guideline recommendations.
    Since each of the tasks that comprise making an emergency call to 
``911'' is, according to the NHTSA Guidelines, acceptable for 
performance by drivers while driving, the Guidelines should have no 
impact on the driver's ability to perform this task while driving.
11. Concerns About the NHTSA Guidelines Preventing Passenger Use of 
Electronic Devices
a. Summary of Comments
    Numerous individual commenters expressed concern that the 
recommendations of the NHTSA Guidelines might prevent passengers from 
using electronic devices to perform tasks such as destination entry 
into a route navigation system while the vehicle is being driven.
b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA believes that manufacturers can follow these Guidelines for 
visual-manual in-vehicle tasks without

[[Page 24841]]

impacting front seat passengers. Quoting from the NHTSA Guidelines:

    These guidelines are appropriate for devices that can reasonably 
be reached and seen by a driver even if they are intended for use 
solely by front seat passengers.

    Based on this recommendation, vehicle designers will have to use 
care in the positioning and implementation of OE electronic devices 
that are intended for use by front seat passengers to avoid impacting 
what the passenger can or cannot do.
    NHTSA encourages automakers to find solutions to meet the 
recommendations of the NHTSA Guidelines while allowing passengers to 
make full use of in-vehicle electronic devices while the vehicle is 
being driven.
    NHTSA believes that technology exists to help companies conform 
fully with the NHTSA Guidelines without impacting electronic device use 
by front seat passengers. For example, NHTSA is aware of center stack 
displays that are visible to a passenger but not to a driver. This sort 
of technological innovation should make it possible for just 
passengers, but not drivers, to use electronic devices.
    For passengers seated behind the front seat of a vehicle, these 
guidelines should have no impact. None of the recommendations of the 
NHTSA Guidelines apply to electronic devices that are located solely 
behind the front seats of the vehicle.
12. Daytime Running Lights Are Major Cause of Driver Distraction
a. Summary of Comments
    Twenty private citizens commented that daytime running lights 
(DRLs) are a major cause of driver distraction that should be 
addressed. Concerns were expressed that they draw unnecessary attention 
to vehicles, that they blind drivers, and that they make it harder to 
see approaching motorcycles.
b. NHTSA's Response
    The NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines do not cover headlights. 
Instead the guidelines focus on the use by drivers of OE in-vehicle 
devices with visual-manual interfaces while driving and reducing 
distraction from these devices.

Issues Specific to the NHTSA Guidelines Stated Purpose

1. Concern That Failure to Meet the NHTSA Guidelines Could Result in 
Enforcement Action
a. Summary of Comments
    Global Automakers and multiple automobile manufacturers requested 
clarification of the relationship between the NHTSA Guidelines and the 
basis for an enforcement action possibly leading to a safety recall 
and/or civil penalties. Quoting from the Global Automakers comments:

    A discrepancy between the Guidelines and the performance of some 
in-vehicle device should not form the basis for an enforcement case. 
However, while stating that the degree to which in-vehicle devices 
meet the specified criteria would not be assessed in the context of 
a formal compliance program, the agency is not clear in regard to 
whether it believes that a failure to meet some aspect of the 
Guidelines could be a factor in determining whether a device 
presents an unreasonable risk to safety warranting a recall. It is 
beyond question that the Guidelines are not a FMVSS subject to 
enforcement through civil penalties and recall authority. Nor is 
such a discrepancy by itself evidence of the existence of a safety-
related defect.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Comments received from Global Automakers. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0099.

b. NHTSA's Response
    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) \83\ 
prescribes several enforcement mechanisms, including, but not limited 
to, notice and remedy (together, these are parts of a recall) 
provisions and civil penalties. Specifically, the Safety Act authorizes 
NHTSA to order the recall of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment 
that do not comply with an applicable FMVSS or that contain a safety-
related defect.\84\ Manufacturers are required to remedy the 
noncompliance or defect without charge when the vehicle or equipment is 
presented for remedy.\85\ Civil penalties are available for violations 
of specified sections of Chapter 301 and the regulations prescribed 
thereunder, including the recall and remedy provisions.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 301, ``Safety Act'').
    \84\ 49 U.S.C. 30118; 30120; 30121.
    \85\ 49 U.S.C. 30120.
    \86\ 49 U.S.C. 30165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's driver distraction recommendations are being issued as 
Guidelines and not as a FMVSS and as such, non-adherence to the 
Guidelines would not result in enforcement action in the same way as 
noncompliance with a FMVSS would. Regardless of whether NHTSA issues 
Guidelines, it is possible that an in-vehicle electronic device could 
create an unreasonable risk to safety, either when functioning as 
intended or when malfunctioning. The Safety Act requires a recall where 
a defect in a vehicle or equipment creates an unreasonable risk to 
safety. Although case law provides some guidance as to what constitutes 
unreasonable risk, each possible safety defect requires separate 
analysis. For example, it is conceivable, although unlikely, that the 
device could malfunction in such a way as to interfere with safety-
critical electronic control systems in the vehicle. Were that to occur 
with sufficient frequency and severity so as to constitute an 
unreasonable risk to safety, the device's adherence to these Guidelines 
would not be relevant to the determination of unreasonable risk. 
Moreover, if NHTSA wanted to show that a device created an unreasonable 
risk, the agency would need to demonstrate the existence of a defect 
with evidence other than mere non-adherence with the Guidelines. We 
agree with Global Automakers' comment to the effect that non-adherence 
does not constitute ``by itself evidence of the existence of a safety-
related defect.''
2. NHTSA's Monitoring of Vehicles' Conformance to Its Guidelines
a. Summary of Comments
    Several commenters addressed the question of whether NHTSA should 
monitor vehicles' conformance to the guidelines and whether the results 
of such monitoring should be made public.
    Professor Richard A. Young provided the following comments:

    Once their test procedures and criteria are validated, NHTSA 
should assess conformance of the in-scope products of automakers and 
suppliers with the NHTSA Guidelines. One way is to test products, 
either internally at NHTSA or through contractors, and assign safety 
ratings such as is done now with NCAP [New Car Assessment 
Program].\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Comments received from Professor Richard A. Young, 
Attachment 1 p. 16. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0106.

    As to the dissemination of results, Professor Young provided the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
following comment:

    NHTSA should make public the results of that monitoring by 
public posting of test results, along with other safety ratings such 
as NCAP.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Ibid, p. 18.

    Similar suggestions about NCAP were also made by other commenters. 
It was pointed out that the NCAP information that is made available for 
each vehicle make/model includes a number of icons indicating whether 
that make/model has electronic stability control, forward collision 
warning, and/or lane departure warning. Commenters suggested that a 
make/model also receive a suitable icon if NHTSA's testing indicated 
that it

[[Page 24842]]

conforms to all of the recommendations of the NHTSA Guidelines.
    Chrysler Group LLC (Chrysler) provided a different view in its 
comments about NHTSA's proposal to monitor adoption of the proposed 
guidelines:

    Chrysler opposes NHTSA's suggestions regarding the monitoring of 
adoption of its proposed guidelines. Chrysler, along with members of 
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, has been voluntarily 
adhering to the Alliance's distracted driving guidelines for more 
than a decade without outside monitoring.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Comments received from Chrysler Group LLC, p. 11. Accessed 
at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 
0095.

    Chrysler also expressed concern about the proposal to conduct 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``spot check'' testing in the following comment:

    Chrysler is concerned with any comparisons NHTSA might make 
through ``spot check'' testing. The conclusions that could be made 
regarding whether a particular device creates an unreasonable risk 
to the driving public are subjective due to the nature of NHTSA's 
proposed test methodologies.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Ibid, p. 11.

    On the question of reporting of results, Chrysler had the following 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
comment:

    * * * if NHTSA were to make public any results, Chrysler's 
recommendation is that monitoring and reporting is conducted 
industry-wide, across the fleet of all makes and models so that any 
publication of results would not favor any single automaker.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Ibid, p. 12.

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA's Vehicle Safety Research intends to perform future 
monitoring to assess conformance to our Driver Distraction Guidelines. 
While the details of this monitoring have yet to be worked out, we do 
plan to test actual production vehicles, either internally by NHTSA or 
through outside contractors. Vehicles will be selected for such 
monitoring so that they cover a large portion of all makes and models 
sold. NHTSA will also consider the suggestions regarding publication of 
the monitoring results once this program is in place.
3. Do automakers have to perform testing as described in the NHTSA 
Guidelines?
a. Summary of Comments
    Several commenters raised questions about how strictly 
manufacturers would be required to adhere to the test protocols 
outlined in the proposed guidelines. The Alliance expressed concern 
about whether the wording of the guidelines outlined a process that 
differed from previous NHTSA initiatives. They provided the following 
comment:

    It is well understood by our members that NHTSA issues 
compliance test procedures to document exactly how the agency 
intends to test compliance to standards and regulations. As part of 
the self-certification process, vehicle manufacturers are free to 
assure compliance using engineering judgment and/or internal test 
procedures that the manufacturer has confidence will result in 
vehicle performance that meets or exceeds the requirements of the 
subject standard. It is the Alliance's understanding that the test 
procedures contained in the distraction guideline proposal apply 
similarly. This understanding was confirmed by agency statements 
made at the March 23, 2012, NHTSA technical workshop.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Comments received from Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, Technical Appendix p. 21. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0104.

    Individual automakers approached this issue more directly, 
requesting that NHTSA explicitly allow methods that they have used in 
the past. GM described a method that differs from the methods described 
in the proposed guidelines. Their focus was on the requirement to use 
24 participants broken into four age groups, which they describe as 
``overly prescriptive.'' \93\ They described their practice in the 
following comment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Comments received from General Motors LLC, Attachment, p. 
3. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 0103.

    GM's practice for evaluating tasks related to in-vehicle 
electronics requires that at least 85% of the test sample complete 
the task with a mean glance time less than two seconds and a total 
eyes-off road time under 20 seconds. GM concentrates on a worst-case 
age group: 45 to 65 years old. * * * findings based on this age 
group are generally more conservative.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Ibid.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Central to their method is the use of smaller sample sizes:

    In cases when the test sample is fewer than 24, a sufficient 
percentage of the test sample must pass validation criteria so that 
Type 1 errors are no more common than if a 24 person sample was 
used.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Ibid.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on the foregoing, GM offered the following recommendation:

    GM believes this method allows flexibility and expediency, while 
maintaining the 85% threshold limit established in the Alliance 
Guidelines. Therefore, GM recommends the proposed guideline adopt 
the 85% threshold limit in the Alliance Guidelines, and not adopt 
the specific sample requirements.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Ibid.

b. NHTSA's Response
    The Alliance's understanding of NHTSA's intended treatment of the 
acceptance test protocols contained in the NHTSA Guidelines is 
accurate. NHTSA issued these acceptance test protocols to document 
exactly how the agency intends to test for conformance to the NHTSA 
Guidelines.
    Unlike FMVSS, manufacturers do not have to certify that their 
vehicles meet these Guidelines. While NHTSA encourages manufacturers to 
adhere to these Guidelines, they are voluntary. Manufacturers choosing 
to conform to the NHTSA Guidelines are free to use whatever methods 
they choose to ensure vehicle performance that meets or exceeds the 
recommendations of the NHTSA Guidelines.
    As discussed earlier, NHTSA's Vehicle Safety Research intends to 
perform monitoring to find out which vehicle make/models conform to our 
Driver Distraction Guidelines. Such monitoring testing by NHTSA or its 
contractors will strictly adhere to the test procedures set forth in 
the NHTSA Guidelines. However, this only sets forth how NHTSA tests for 
conformance to these Guidelines; manufacturers are free to use any test 
procedures that they wish.
4. Lead Time for the NHTSA Guidelines
a. Summary of Comments
    Organizations had differing opinions about how long it would take 
to incorporate changes to in-vehicle systems to ensure adherence to the 
proposed Guidelines. The following comment was provided by Chrysler 
Group LLC (Chrysler):

    Chrysler has assessed how these changes could be incorporated 
into existing timing plans at the vehicle level as well as the sub-
system and component level. Product timing at each of these levels 
is distinct and coordination between them must be achieved in order 
to execute change of the magnitude suggested by NHTSA's proposed 
guidelines.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Comments received from Chrysler Group LLC, p. 10. Accessed 
at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 
0095.

    Chrysler does not believe the two year lead time suggested in 
NHTSA's proposed guidelines is realistic. It is possible that it may 
take a decade to phase in all elements of the guidelines throughout 
the fleet.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Ibid, p. 10.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Consumers Union provided a different perspective:

    * * * many of the proposals outlined in the Guidelines would 
only require the re-design of already-existing software. 
Manufacturers make regular changes to software, without having to 
alter the

[[Page 24843]]

hardware of the vehicle. Software re-designs can even be applied as 
software updates to vehicles that have already been sold. Consumers 
Union therefore urges auto manufacturers to implement these 
Guidelines as soon as possible, and not to expect the changes to be 
put off for as long as five years.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Comments received from Consumers Union, p. 4. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0063.

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA wants to make it absolutely clear that since its Driver 
Distraction Guidelines are voluntary and nonbinding, they do not have a 
``lead time'' in the same way that a FMVSS or other regulation has a 
lead time. Vehicle manufacturers are not required to meet the NHTSA 
Guidelines.
    All members of the Alliance have committed themselves to producing 
vehicles that meet the Alliance Guidelines. Most of the recommendations 
in the Alliance Guidelines are carried over into the NHTSA Guidelines 
unchanged. However, the NHTSA Guidelines are more stringent than the 
Alliance Guidelines in three major areas:
     We have added three per se lock outs: ``displaying 
images,'' ``manual text entry,'' and ``displaying text to be read.''
     We are not including Alliance Principle 2.1 Alternative B, 
an alternative protocol for evaluating distraction, in our list of 
recommended acceptance test protocols.
     We have increased the stringency of the eye glance-related 
acceptance test criteria. For the Eye Glance Measurement on a Driving 
Simulator acceptance test protocol, the maximum acceptable total eye-
off-road time (TEORT) has been reduced from 20 seconds to 12 seconds 
and a second criterion limiting long eye glances away from the road has 
been added. For the Occlusion acceptance test protocol, the Total 
Shutter Open Time (TSOT) has been reduced from 15 seconds to 12 
seconds.
    NHTSA believes that vehicles that meet the Alliance Guidelines 
would either meet or be close to meeting all of the recommendations of 
the NHTSA Guidelines; however, we do understand that this increased 
stringency of the NHTSA Guidelines may require additional work to 
ensure conformance. While Consumers Union may be correct that the vast 
majority of vehicle and device changes needed to meet the 
recommendations of the NHTSA Guidelines are simply software changes, 
some substantial vehicle and device changes may be needed in a few 
areas due to the increased stringency of the NHTSA Guidelines relative 
to the Alliance Guidelines. NHTSA does recognize that such redesigns 
take substantial time.
    NHTSA believes that manufacturers choosing to implement these 
Guidelines for existing vehicle models would likely make any needed 
changes to meet these Guidelines when a vehicle model undergoes a major 
revision. This should minimize need to redesign existing models and 
would allow incorporation of any necessary research and/or conformance 
testing into the normal vehicle production cycle.
    Typically, major revisions occur on about a five-year cycle for 
passenger cars and less frequently for light trucks. NHTSA believes 
that it should be feasible for manufacturers to make the necessary 
changes implementing these guidelines for existing vehicle models that 
undergo major revisions after approximately three or more years after 
the issuance of this notice instituting the NHTSA Guidelines (i.e., 
model year 2017 or later). This three-year time frame is an increase 
from the two-year time frame stated in the Initial Notice. NHTSA's 
estimate has changed after considering the comments received about the 
increased stringency of the NHTSA Guidelines relative to the Alliance 
Guidelines.
    Likewise, NHTSA believes that Guideline conformance should be 
feasible for new vehicle models that come onto the market three or more 
years after the issuance of this notice instituting the NHTSA 
Guidelines (i.e., model year 2017 or later). For existing vehicle 
models that do not undergo major revisions, NHTSA is not suggesting a 
time frame by which the recommendations of these Guidelines could be 
met.

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
a. Summary of Comments
    Multiple commenters questioned the addition of conventional 
electronic devices to the scope of NHTSA Guidelines and stated that the 
inclusion of these devices is not supported by crash data.
    The Alliance Guidelines do not apply to conventional information or 
communications systems. They list conventional information and 
communications systems as:

AM Radio
FM Radio
Satellite Radio
Cassette
CD
MPS
RDS
Vehicle Information Center \100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ P. 11, ibid.

    Unlike the Alliance Guidelines, the NHTSA Guidelines are applicable 
to the above listed conventional information and communications 
systems.
    The comment submitted by the Alliance stated the following about 
the safety of conventional information and communications systems:

    Historically, driver manipulation of common in-vehicle systems 
has been an infrequent factor in traffic crashes. Analysis of US 
crash statistics in the early 1990s, prior to the widespread 
introduction of OEM integrated telematics systems, revealed a very 
low occurrence of crashes recorded with driver manipulation of 
integrated displays/controls. Approximately 5% of the sources of 
diverted attention/workload studied by Wierwille and Tijerina (1995) 
were associated with the conventional types of integrated displays/
controls contemplated by the expanded scope proposed in the Visual-
Manual NHTSA Guidelines.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Comments received from the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, p. 4. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0104.

    Conversely, the Consumers Union comments agreed with NHTSA 
including conventional electronic devices in the scope of the NHTSA 
Guidelines and further extending them to cover heating, ventilation, 
and air conditioning (HVAC) controls. Quoting from the Consumers Union 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
comments:

    However, we are concerned that some functions which NHTSA 
classifies as part of the primary driving task (and thus exempts 
from these Guidelines) could also be significant sources of needless 
distraction for drivers. For example, many modern vehicle designs 
incorporate heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) 
controls into their on-screen or controller based systems. This 
incorporation increases the complexity of these controls, since the 
driver must interact with the screen and select various options in 
order to enable heating and cooling functions, rather than simply 
using knobs or push-buttons. According to Consumer Reports' findings 
on the distractions posed by various in-car controls, published in 
the October 2011 issue of the magazine, even some allegedly simpler 
functions that we tested, such as manual radio tuning, are now so 
complicated that they may not meet the proposed Guidelines.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See, ``Controls Gone Wild,'' available at: https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazinearchive/2011/october/cars/the-connected-car/controls-gone-wild/index.htm.

    As a result, Consumers Union encourages NHTSA not to completely 
exempt HVAC controls from these Guidelines. These heating and 
cooling tasks could become just

[[Page 24844]]

as distracting as operating a navigation system or an entertainment 
system.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Comments received from Consumers Union, p. 2. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0063.

    Additionally, commenters requested that NHTSA make two 
clarifications to the Scope section of its Guidelines:
     To explicitly state in the Scope section that these 
Guidelines are applicable only to the visual-manual aspects of 
electronic device human-machine interfaces, and
     To clarify that these Guidelines do apply to controls 
integral to the vehicle that are meant to control portable and/or 
aftermarket devices.
b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA believes that the fact that some devices and systems have 
been present in motor vehicles for approximately 80 years does not 
imply that it is reasonable for them to be designed with interfaces 
that excessively distract drivers. Therefore, we have retained 
conventional (as listed in the Alliance Guidelines) information and 
communications systems in the scope of electronic devices for which the 
NHTSA Guidelines are applicable for the reasons discussed below.
    NHTSA does not believe that there is any inherent difference in the 
distraction potential of new devices compared to those that have been 
present in motor vehicles for many years. For both types of systems, a 
poorly designed human-machine interface could distract the driver more 
than is compatible with safe driving. Both types of electronic devices 
should have well designed human-machine interfaces to minimize driver 
distraction and promote safe driving.
    Additionally, past research has identified a number of crashes that 
are believed to involve driver distraction due to use of conventional 
communications and information systems.
    A 1996 study by Wang, Knipling, and Goodman \104\ analyzed data 
collected during 1995 by the National Automotive Sampling System 
Crashworthiness Data System (NASS CDS).\105\ This analysis found that 
distraction due to drivers' use of a radio, cassette player, or CD 
player was present in 2.1 percent of all crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Wang, J.S., Knipling, R.R., and Goodman, M.J., ``The Role 
of Driver Inattention in Crashes: New Statistics from the 1995 
Crashworthiness Data System,'' 40th Annual proceedings, Association 
for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Vancouver, British 
Columbia, Canada, October 1996.
    \105\ NASS CDS, like 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 CDS are estimates. 
Unlike NASS GES, in 1995 NASS CDS had a variable that indicated 
whether a driver was distracted and the cause of that distraction 
(if present).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A more recent study by Singh \106\ analyzed data from NHTSA's 
National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS) \107\ to 
estimate the incidence of crashes due to radios and CD players 
(cassette players in vehicles are a disappearing technology). This 
analysis found that distraction due to drivers' use of a radio or CD 
player was present in 1.2 percent of all crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ P. 5, Singh, S., ``Distracted Driving and Driver, Roadway, 
and Environmental Factors,'' DOT HS 811 380, September 2010.
    \107\ NMVCCS is NHTSA's most recent, nationally representative, 
detailed survey of the causes of light motor vehicle crashes. For 
NMVCCS driver (including distraction- and inattention-related 
information), vehicle, and environment data were collected during a 
three-year period (January 2005 to December 2007). A total of 6,949 
crashes met the specified criteria for inclusion in NMVCCS. Due to 
specific requirements that must be met by crashes for inclusion in 
NMVCCS, the NMVCCS data differs from other crash databases such as 
NASS-CDS or NASS-GES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While NHTSA agrees with the Alliance that these percentages of 
crashes are well below five percent of the total crashes, that does not 
mean that NHTSA is not concerned about them.
    Recent NHTSA research \108\ has found substantial differences in 
Total Eyes-Off-Road Time (TEORT) for drivers performing radio tuning 
tasks using the radios of different production vehicles. During radio 
tuning testing using five production vehicles, some using button tuning 
and others using knob tuning, a range of 85th percentile TEORTs (one of 
the acceptance criteria in the NHTSA Guidelines) varying from 8.0 to 
15.8 seconds were observed. NHTSA wishes to encourage the use of driver 
interfaces for electronic devices, whether they are used by 
conventional communications and information systems or by newer 
telematics systems that keep the driver's eyes on the road ahead as 
much as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Perez, M., Owens, J., Viita, D, Angell, L, Ranney, T.A., 
Baldwin, G.H.S., Parmer, E., Martin, J., Garrott, W.R., and Mazzae, 
E.N., ``Summary of Radio Tuning Effects on Visual and Driving 
Performance Measures--Simulator and Test Track Studies,'' NHTSA 
Technical Report in press. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket 
NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0076, April 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NHTSA is concerned that the driver interfaces of 
conventional electronic devices can, with modern electronics, be made 
far more distracting than they have been in the past. NHTSA does not 
believe that, for example, a future in-vehicle radio should show video 
clips as it plays music and be considered in conformance with the NHTSA 
Guidelines simply because a radio is a conventional electronic device.
    Drivers' performance of aspects of the primary driving task (e.g., 
using the steering wheel to maneuver the vehicle, applying the throttle 
and brake pedals) is considered to be inherently non-distracting since 
distraction is defined as the diversion of a driver's attention from 
activities performed as part of the safe operation and control of a 
vehicle to a competing activity. Furthermore, NHTSA assumes that 
dedicated controls and displays for conventional primary driving tasks 
are designed to promote efficient task performance and, other than 
perhaps during an initial period when a driver is acclimating to a 
newly acquired vehicle, drivers' performance of driving-related tasks 
using conventional system controls and displays is unlikely to involve 
an unreasonable degree of distraction. However, NHTSA notes that 
drivers' use of primary driving controls and displays that are poorly 
designed or located may result in degradations in driving performance 
similar to that which results from a driver's performance of secondary 
tasks.
    With regard to the suggestion from Consumers Union that HVAC 
controls and displays should be added to the scope of the NHTSA 
Guidelines, NHTSA agrees that HVAC-related tasks should meet all of the 
recommendations of the NHTSA Guidelines. NHTSA did not propose in the 
Initial Notice that dedicated HVAC controls and displays be within the 
scope of the Guidelines because some HVAC-related features are critical 
to the safe operation and control of the vehicle. For example, the 
FMVSS include requirements for ``Windshield defrosting and defogging 
systems'' (FMVSS No. 103) and ``Windshield wiping and washing systems'' 
(FMVSS No. 104) to ensure that the driver has a clear view of the 
roadway. Additionally, although not HVAC-related, another system 
essential to the safe operation and control of the vehicle and required 
by FMVSS is headlamps (FMVSS No. 108, ``Lamps, reflective devices, and 
associated equipment''), which also aid the driver in seeing the 
roadway. A driver's use of such required systems is considered to be 
part of the ``primary driving task'' because, in certain environmental 
conditions, the absence of such systems would make driving less safe 
and in some cases impossible. As such, the controls and displays 
associated with these required systems should not be locked out for use 
by the driver at any time, even if related tasks do not meet the task 
acceptance criteria.

[[Page 24845]]

Given the importance of the availability of these FMVSS-required 
systems, NHTSA is continuing to exclude from the scope of the 
Guidelines HVAC-related systems that are required by FMVSS.
    However, NHTSA has reconsidered its position on HVAC-related tasks 
not associated with a vehicle system or equipment required by a FMVSS 
and is including such tasks within the scope of the NHTSA Guidelines. 
Although NHTSA is not aware of any past research identifying crashes 
caused by driver distraction due to a driver's adjustment of 
traditionally-designed HVAC controls, the agency is concerned that the 
advent of multi-function display interfaces that permit interaction 
with multiple vehicle functions, including some non-required HVAC 
functions, may involve a greater degree of driver distraction. 
Specifically, NHTSA is concerned that these new interfaces can require 
more steps to accomplish HVAC and other tasks than a standard, 
dedicated control. Given this concern, NHTSA has reconsidered its 
position and has decided to include within the scope of the NHTSA 
Guidelines HVAC system adjustment tasks that are not associated with a 
vehicle system or equipment required by a FMVSS. NHTSA believes that 
providing redundant means of accomplishing secondary tasks via both 
dedicated controls and a multi-function display interface does not 
provide any added benefit to the driver if the redundant task 
performance means (i.e., a multi-function display) is less efficient 
than the original means.
    Finally, NHTSA has made the two requested clarifications:
     We have explicitly stated in the Scope section that these 
Guidelines are applicable only to the visual-manual aspects of 
electronic device human-machine interfaces, and
     Added statements that these Guidelines do apply to 
controls integral to the vehicle that are meant to control portable 
and/or aftermarket devices.
2. Confusion About Limiting Scope of NHTSA Guidelines to Non-Driving 
Activities
a. Summary of Comments
    The proposed version of the NHTSA Guidelines Scope section began 
with the sentence:

    These guidelines are appropriate for driver interfaces of 
original equipment electronic devices for performing non-driving 
activities that are built into a vehicle when it is manufactured.

    Multiple commenters complained that this sentence was confusing and 
misleading since it incorrectly indicated that such clearly driving-
related tasks as route navigation were not within the scope of the 
NHTSA Guidelines while later portions of the Guidelines clearly 
indicated that they were in scope. Quoting from the comment submitted 
by the Alliance on this topic:

    In addition the agency offers no definition for the term ``non-
driving-related'' or why this distinction is important to managing 
driver distraction. The Alliance Guidelines do not make such a 
distinction because ``driving related'' tasks, available to the 
driver while driving, can also lead to undesirable levels of driver 
workload if not properly designed. * * * Moreover, NHTSA has somehow 
included navigation under the proposed definition of ``non-driving-
related'' tasks/devices even though route finding and direction 
following are basic and vital parts of the driving task.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ Comments received from the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-
0053, Document Number 0104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA agrees with the commenters that the proposed version of the 
NHTSA Guidelines Scope section began with a confusing and misleading 
sentence. As commenters pointed out, NHTSA definitely wishes to include 
some driving-related tasks (i.e., route finding and direction following 
among others) in the scope of its Guidelines.
    In response to this comment, NHTSA has done four things:
    1. Added a definition of Driving-Related Task to the NHTSA 
Guidelines Definitions section. Driving-Related Task means either: (1) 
Any activity performed by a driver as part of the safe operation and 
control of the vehicle, (2) any activity performed by a driver that 
relates to use of a vehicle system required by Federal or State law or 
regulation, or (3) any other activity performed by a driver that aids 
the driver in performing the driving task but is not essential to the 
safe operation or control of the vehicle (e.g., navigation, cruise 
control). The first two types of driving-related task are not covered 
by the Guidelines. The third type of driving-related task includes 
secondary tasks related to driving that are covered by the Guidelines.
    2. Added a definition of Non-Driving-Related Task to the Guidelines 
Definitions section. Non-Driving-Related Task means any activity 
performed by a driver other than those related to the driving task.
    3. Extensively revised the Guidelines Scope section to make it 
clear that the Guidelines are applicable to all non-driving-related 
tasks utilizing electronic devices as well as for electronic devices 
used for performing some driving-related tasks.
    4. Added a table to the Guidelines Scope section listing for which 
driving-related tasks the Guidelines are applicable.
3. Suggestions To Expand Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines To Cover Medium 
and Heavy Trucks and Buses
a. Summary of Comments
    In their comments, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
provided detailed narrative descriptions of several severe distraction-
related crashes that they investigated. Among these were crashes 
involving a heavy truck driver and a motorcoach driver, both of whom 
were distracted by cell phone tasks at the time of their respective 
crashes. Based in part on severity of these outcomes, the NTSB provided 
the following comment recommending the inclusion of larger size 
vehicles in the scope of these Guidelines:

    * * * the proposed guidelines are limited to passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks and buses with a gross 
vehicle weight rating of not more than 10,000 pounds. However, 
considering the significance of large commercial vehicles in overall 
crash and fatality rates, and given the increasing availability and 
use of electronic logs, global positioning system[s], and other 
potentially distracting systems in these vehicles, the NTSB 
encourages NHTSA, with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, to monitor the introduction of in-vehicle technology 
and aftermarket technology into medium trucks, heavy trucks, and 
buses, including motorcoaches, and to conduct research as 
appropriate.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Comments received from The National Transportation Safety 
Board, p. 6. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-
0053, Document Number 0066.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    The human-machine interfaces of medium vehicles (those with a GVWR 
from 10,001 through 26,000 pounds) and heavy vehicles (those with a 
GVWR of 26,001 pounds or greater) differ from those of light vehicles 
(i.e., vehicles other than motorcycles with a gross vehicle weight 
rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less) in many ways. Medium and heavy 
vehicles (hereinafter just heavy vehicles) typically have more and 
different driver controls and displays. Heavy vehicles are typically 
driven for commercial purposes and may be equipped with dispatching 
systems or other systems or devices not found in privately-owned light 
vehicles. Heavy vehicle drivers are frequently seated higher above the 
road than is the case

[[Page 24846]]

for light vehicle drivers, affecting device downward viewing angle 
recommendations. While the fundamental principles (the driver's eyes 
should usually be looking at the road ahead, etc.) that underlie 
NHTSA's Guidelines apply to heavy vehicles just as they do to light 
vehicles, the details of guideline implementation needs to be different 
for heavy vehicles. For example, the display downward viewing angle 
recommendations may need to be modified.
    Except for naturalistic data analyses sponsored by the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA),\111\ the research that has 
resulted in the NHTSA Guidelines involved only light vehicles. NHTSA 
has many Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that apply to 
heavy vehicles. In performing the research needed to develop existing 
heavy vehicle FMVSS, NHTSA has learned that not all research findings 
for light vehicles carry over to heavy vehicles. Therefore, research 
would be needed to determine which research findings will carry over 
from light vehicles to heavy vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ Olson, R.L., Hanowski, R.J., Hickman, J.S., and Bocanegra, 
J., ``Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations,'' FMCSA-
RRR-09-042, September 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While NHTSA believes that addressing driver distraction in heavy 
vehicles is important, research needs to be performed before 
distraction-related recommendations for heavy vehicles can be made. 
Nothing precludes heavy vehicle manufacturers from following the 
principles and Guidelines set out in this document should they find 
them useful.
4. Request That Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines Exclude Emergency 
Response Vehicles
a. Summary of Comments
    During a meeting with members of NHTSA's staff, \112\ the National 
Association of Fleet Administrators (NAFA) commented that the 
recommendations of the NHTSA Guidelines should not apply to law 
enforcement vehicles. NAFA's written comments \113\ provided extensive 
commentary to support their recommendation that the Guidelines should 
not apply to certain government fleet and emergency service vehicles, 
including law enforcement, fire and rescue, utility service, and 
medical response vehicles, such as ambulances. They provided the 
following rationale to support their recommendations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ This meeting is documented in the memorandum ``Docket 
Submission Documenting Ex Parte Meeting with the National 
Association of Fleet Administrators,'' accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0080.
    \113\ Comments received from National Association of Fleet 
Administrators. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-
0053, Document Number 0110.

    The Guidelines do not reflect the systems and procedures 
utilized by law enforcement agencies.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The per se lockout requirements of the Guidelines will impede 
the mission of these vehicles and their drivers. The safety of the 
officer and the public necessitate that the in-vehicle electronic 
devices be operational when the vehicle is moving. For example, in 
police operations, the officer often has to enter GPS coordinates 
while the vehicle is in motion.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Ibid.

    They assert that the ability to perform the following activities 
when a law-enforcement vehicle is moving is essential: (1) Visual-
manual text messaging; (2) visual-manual internet browsing; (3) visual-
manual social media browsing; (4) visual-manual navigation system 
destination entry by address; and (5) visual-manual 10-digit phone 
dialing.
    To facilitate these requirements, they make three specific 
recommendations:

    The Guidelines should explicitly provide that, in the case of 
government vehicles and emergency service vehicles, the vehicle 
manufacturer program into the vehicle's Electronic Control Module 
the ability to override the per se lock out functions. Essentially, 
this would make the vehicle ``think'' that it is parked.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ Ibid. p. 2.

    The Guidelines should permit the override function to be enabled 
upon the request of a government agency, law enforcement, fire and 
rescue, medical services agency, or utility company by providing an 
access code to enable/disable this feature.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ Ibid. p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the vehicle is decommissioned and offered for sale, the 
agency should be required to restore the vehicle to factory 
standards.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ Ibid. p. 2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NAFA offered additional support for their recommendations:

    This approach enables the vehicle manufacturers to engineer a 
single system to meet the requirements of the Guidelines, thus not 
impeding vehicle production schedules, while also meeting the needs 
of those fleets where integrated, added or hand-held electronic 
devices are fundamental to the work requirement of the vehicle and 
its driver: Whether a police officer on patrol; fire personnel 
responding to a fire; or a state transportation representative 
monitoring road conditions.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Ibid. p. 2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chrysler made a similar suggestion in their commentary:

    With respect to special-purpose vehicles such as those used for 
Police vehicles and Ambulance up-fits, Chrysler asks that NHTSA 
expressly exempt such vehicles from the proposed guidelines. Such 
exemptions are common but not universal in various state laws.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ Comments received from Chrysler Group LLC, p. 7. Accessed 
at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 
0095.

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA generally agrees with these comments. In order to respond 
quickly to emergencies, law enforcement, fire, and medical response 
personnel may need to perform tasks that might normally be locked out 
under the NHTSA Guidelines. The agency believes that emergency 
responders' effectiveness is unlikely to be jeopardized by allowing 
emergency response drivers to perform certain job-related tasks. As 
first responders, police and emergency personnel are acutely aware of 
the hazards of distracted driving. Additionally, many emergency 
responders receive additional training in driving beyond that required 
to acquire a driver's license and also receive training in the use of 
the equipment in the emergency response vehicle. NHTSA believes that 
this additional training and awareness may mitigate any distraction 
risk presented by exempting emergency response vehicles from the task 
lock out provisions of these Guidelines.
    NHTSA does not agree with the suggestion that the NHTSA Guidelines 
should not apply to service vehicles. We do not believe that the 
response time needs of utility service vehicles are as time critical as 
those of the other emergency service vehicles listed in the NAFA 
comment. Therefore, we have not excluded utility services vehicles from 
the scope of the NHTSA Guidelines.
    Although not requested by the commenters, NHTSA also believes that 
its Driver Distraction Guidelines should not apply to vehicles that are 
built primarily for the military or for other emergency uses as 
prescribed by regulation by the Secretary of Transportation. NHTSA's 
Driver Distraction Guidelines have been appropriately changed to 
exclude these vehicles from the scope of these Guidelines.
5. Request That Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines Not Include Displays 
Required by Other Government Bodies
a. Summary of Comments
    American Honda Motor Company (Honda) requested that emissions 
controls and fuel economy information

[[Page 24847]]

not be included within the scope to the NHTSA Guidelines. Quoting from 
Honda's comment:

    Certain emission information, such as the check engine 
malfunction indicator light, is required by the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources 
Board, and is specified within FMVSS 101. Supplemental information 
for this and other malfunction indicators can be immediately 
beneficial to drivers by informing them of the severity and urgency 
of the condition that caused the light to illuminate and helping 
drivers make informed decisions about the appropriate actions and 
timing of their responses. This type of information may be provided 
through a vehicle information center, and restriction of this 
information should be carefully considered.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Comments received from American Honda Company, p. 3. 
Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 0112.

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA wishes to point out that simply because the display of 
certain types of information is covered by the NHTSA Guidelines does 
not mean that this information cannot be displayed to the driver. For 
covered types of information, the display of the information should not 
distract the driver, in accordance with these Guidelines. Such 
information can be displayed through a vehicle information center or 
multi-function display, malfunction indicators, or other types of 
displays.
    The NHTSA Guidelines already exempted from their scope any 
electronic device that has a control and/or display specified by a 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). However, a motor vehicle 
control and/or display could also be mandated by other United States 
Government agencies (such as the Environmental Protection Agency). We 
do not want there to be any possibility that the NHTSA Guidelines 
conflict with the mandates of these other government organizations. 
Therefore, we have expanded the exclusion for controls and/or displays 
covered by a FMVSS. The NHTSA Guidelines now exclude from their scope 
controls and/or displays specified by standards from any U.S. 
government organization.

D. Definition of Driving and Lock Out Conditions

1. For Automatic Transmission Vehicles--In Park Versus At or Above 5 
mph
a. Summary of Comments
    Multiple commenters including the Alliance, Global Automakers, and 
multiple individual motor vehicle manufacturers suggested that NHTSA 
change its definition of driving \122\ so that a driver is considered 
to be driving a vehicle whenever the vehicle speed exceeds 5 mph but 
not when the vehicle is stationary or moving at less than 5 mph. The 
proposed NHTSA Guidelines defined driving, for automatic transmission 
vehicles, as being anytime the vehicle's engine was ``On'' unless the 
vehicle's transmission was in ``Park.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Underlined terms are defined in Section IV. Definitions of 
the NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter-suggested change would make the definition of driving 
in the NHTSA Guidelines consistent with the definition of driving 
contained in the Alliance Guidelines. The reasons for this suggestion 
were essentially the same for all commenters. Two relevant quotes from 
the Alliance comments explain the commenters' rationale:

    The Alliance believes that this [definition] is unnecessarily 
restrictive and will lead to widespread customer dissatisfaction 
with the (non)functionality of embedded information, communications, 
and entertainment (hereafter, telematics) systems. Resultant 
customer frustration with in-vehicle telematics systems will likely 
lead to a strong propensity by drivers to instead opt for the use of 
portable devices. Far from improving driving safety and reducing 
distracted driving, this would have the opposite effect, since use 
of portable devices while driving requires both more eyes off-road 
time, and more manual interaction with the device.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Comments received from the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, p. 21. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Naturalistic data confirms that drivers self-regulate secondary 
task engagement, frequently waiting until driving demands (and 
associated crash risk) are low before engaging in secondary tasks. 
One of the most frequent and lowest demand/risk conditions is idling 
in traffic, whether at signalized intersections or when in stop-and-
go traffic. Many drivers will use such short intervals of stationary 
operation to undertake secondary tasks that might otherwise be too 
demanding to perform while driving. Locking out in-vehicle 
telematics functions during these brief periods of stationary 
vehicle operation will forestall such responsible device use 
behaviors by drivers, and will likely lead to compensatory behaviors 
that are worse for driving safety. Such unsafe behaviors may include 
use of paper maps or portable devices, placement of the vehicle in 
``Park'' while in an active driving lane, or pulling over to the 
road shoulder of an active roadway in order to use the device.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ P. 22, ibid.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A quote from Ford Motor Company further discusses their concerns:

    Additionally, Sayer, Devonshire, and Flanagan's (2007) analysis 
of secondary task behavior during the Road Departure Collision 
Warning (RDCW) field operational test found that drivers appear to 
selectively engage in secondary tasks according to driving 
conditions. When drivers can freely choose, they elect to engage in 
secondary tasks when their driving skills are least needed. Most 
recently, Funkhouser and Sayer (2012) analyzed almost 1000 hours of 
naturalistic driving data and discovered that drivers frequently 
manage risk by initiating visual-manual cellphone tasks while the 
vehicle is stopped (but not in PARK). NHTSA's approach would 
eliminate opportunities for drivers to engage in this type of 
safety-positive behavior, and may result in more drivers choosing to 
use a hand-held device rather than the safer built-in vehicle 
interfaces.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ Comments received from Ford Motor Company, p. 5. Accessed 
at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 
0097.

    In its comments, the Alliance also asserted that the NHTSA 
Guidelines' definition of driving does not need to be compatible with 
those contained in Executive Order (EO) 13513, Federal Leadership on 
Reducing Text Messaging While Driving (issued on October 1, 2009) and 
in Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSR) 49 CFR Sec.  392.80, 
Prohibition Against Texting (issued September 27, 2010) since these are 
focused on portable, not OE, devices. The following quote from the 
Alliance comments presents their argument:
    However, this prohibition on texting while driving is aimed at use 
of devices carried into the vehicle, rather than at in-vehicle devices 
provided as original equipment (OE) by vehicle manufacturers:

    Sec. 2. Text Messaging While Driving by Federal Employees. 
Federal employees shall not engage in text messaging (a) when 
driving GOV, or when driving POV while on official Government 
business, or (b) when using electronic equipment supplied by the 
Government while driving. [emphasis added by the Alliance]

    In-vehicle OE devices are integrated with the vehicle operating 
data bus, and can therefore be designed to automatically disable 
telematics functions deemed to be incompatible with driving. The 
Alliance Driver Focus-Telematics.

    (DFT) Guidelines specify that such functions should be 
automatically disabled when the vehicle is operated at speeds above 
5 mph. This threshold speed is based on the capability of wheel 
speed sensors to detect and measure vehicle speed. Because the 
device interface will cease to function within one second of normal 
operation (i.e., less than a single ``safe'' glance interval) it 
effectively addresses the concern that drivers

[[Page 24848]]

may attempt to continue with a locked-out task after resuming travel 
in traffic.'' \126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ Comments received from the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, p. 22. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0104.

b. NHTSA's Response
    Adopting this suggestion would change the conditions for which 
tasks would be locked out. Since lock out is only recommended by the 
NHTSA Guidelines for certain electronic devices and/or tasks while 
driving, the suggested change would mean that lock out would apply only 
when the speed of the vehicle exceeds 5 mph. Multiple reasons were 
offered for this suggestion; however none were sufficiently compelling 
to NHTSA to justify revising the conditions for lock out of tasks. The 
reasons for this decision are discussed below.
    Regarding the Alliance's concern that NHTSA's proposed definition 
of driving may lead to increased portable device use, the agency notes 
that Phase 2 of NHTSA's Guidelines will help manage the use of portable 
devices through recommendations designed to decrease the distracting 
potential of these devices.
    NHTSA is not convinced that drivers performing otherwise locked out 
tasks while stopped in traffic or at a traffic light is safe. We are 
concerned that a definition based on lock out of tasks only for vehicle 
speeds above 5 mph could result in distracted drivers inadvertently 
allowing their vehicles to roll forward at very low speed and possibly 
strike pedestrians, pedalcyclists, etc. Furthermore, the agency is 
concerned that drivers not paying attention to the roadway while 
stopped and performing a normally locked out task then switching back 
suddenly when traffic starts moving or the traffic light turns green 
creates an increased risk of a crash or, at a crosswalk, of hitting a 
pedestrian.
    In the Initial Notice, NHTSA discussed how the definition of 
driving was similar to the definitions of driving contained in FMCSR 49 
CFR 392.80, and Executive Order (EO) 13513. Since the publication of 
the Initial Notice, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 
Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-114, 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012), has 
been signed into law. This statute contains a similar definition of 
driving to that contained in the Initial Notice, FMCSR 49 CFR 392.80, 
and EO 13513.
    Section 31105 of MAP-21 authorizes a distracted driving grant 
program for states that have enacted and are enforcing laws that 
prohibit texting while driving or youth cell phone use while driving. 
MAP-21 defines driving for the purposes of this program as:

    Operating a motor vehicle on a public road, including operation 
while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic light or 
stop sign, or otherwise; and * * * [Driving] does not include 
operating a motor vehicle when the vehicle has pulled over to the 
side of, or off, an active roadway and has stopped in a location 
where it can safely remain stationary.

    The FMCSR 49 CFR 392.80, Prohibition Against Texting definition is:

    Driving means operating a commercial motor vehicle, with the 
motor running, including while temporarily stationary because of 
traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays. 
Driving does not include operating a commercial motor vehicle with 
or without the motor running when the driver moved the vehicle to 
the side of, or off, a highway, as defined in 49 CFR Sec.  390.5, 
and halted in a location where the vehicle can safely remain 
stationary.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ FMCSR Sec.  392.90, Prohibition against texting, accessed 
from https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=392.80, issued September 27, 2010.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The EO 13513 definition is:

    Driving means operating a motor vehicle on an active roadway 
with the motor running, including while temporarily stationary 
because of traffic, a traffic light or stop sign, or otherwise. It 
does not include operating a motor vehicle with or without the motor 
running when one has pulled over to the side of, or off, an active 
roadway and has halted in a location where one can safely remain 
stationary.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ Executive Order 13513, ``Federal Leadership on Reducing 
Text Messaging While Driving,'' October 1, 2009, accessed from 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Executive-Order-Federal-Leadership-on-Reducing-Text-Messaging-while-Driving/.

    NHTSA recognizes that it may not be easy to implement the above 
definitions using vehicle technology. For example, it could be very 
difficult to determine if a vehicle has been ``pulled over to the side 
of, or off, an active roadway and has halted in a location where one 
can safely remain stationary.'' \129\ Therefore, as explained in the 
initial notice, the agency has modified the Guidelines' definition of 
driving from that contained in MAP-21, FMCSR 392.80, and EO 13513 to 
make it easier to implement. For a vehicle equipped with a transmission 
with a ``Park'' position, it has been changed to be whenever the 
vehicle's means of propulsion (engine and/or motor) is activated unless 
the vehicle's transmission is in ``Park.'' From a technical point of 
view, this should make it easier for vehicle manufacturers to determine 
whether a driver is driving a vehicle since, in order to meet the 
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Number 
114, the manufacturers of vehicles equipped with transmissions with a 
``Park'' position have to be able to determine when the transmission is 
in ``Park.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA agrees with the Alliance that EO 13513 and FMCSR 392.80 are 
both focused on portable, not integrated, electronic devices, but we do 
not agree with the Alliance that the extension of these documents to 
integrated electronic devices would change their definition of driving. 
There is nothing in the EO 13513 and FMCSR 392.80 definitions of 
driving that depends upon whether an electronic device is brought into 
the vehicle or is integrated into the vehicle.
    Therefore, for the purposes of the Distraction Guidelines, NHTSA is 
using a definition of driving that is compatible with that contained in 
MAP-21, FMCSR 392.80, and EO 13513. The differences between the MAP-21, 
FMCSR 392.80, and EO 13513 definitions and the NHTSA definition are 
intended to make this definition easier for vehicle manufacturers to 
implement.
2. Definition of Driving for Manual Transmission Vehicles
a. Summary of Comments
    In addition to the previously discussed comments about the 
definition of driving that are applicable to all vehicles, multiple 
commenters stated that there are technical barriers to implementing the 
definition of driving for manual transmission vehicles that was 
proposed in the Initial Notice version of the NHTSA Guidelines.
    In the Initial Notice, NHTSA proposed to define driving for manual 
transmission vehicles as any condition in which the vehicle's engine is 
``On'' unless the vehicle's transmission is in ``Neutral'' and the 
parking brake is ``On.'' However, commenters pointed out that manual 
transmission vehicles are frequently not equipped with a sensor that 
detects when the transmission is in ``Neutral.'' The addition of such a 
sensor would require the addition of added hardware to the vehicle and 
require significant resources.
    This comment was made by the Alliance and multiple individual motor 
vehicle manufacturers.
b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA does not believe that the addition of hardware to the vehicle 
or the expenditure of significant resources is necessary to implement 
its proposed

[[Page 24849]]

definition of driving for manual transmission vehicles.
    Even without the presence of a sensor that detects when the 
transmission is in ``Neutral,'' manufacturers can still infer when the 
vehicle is in ``Neutral.'' Manufacturers do know the rotational speed 
of both the engine and the driven wheels. Dividing the rotational speed 
of the engine by that of the driven wheels, manufacturers can determine 
a current effective overall gear ratio for the transmission/vehicle. If 
this value does not equal, allowing for production and measurement 
tolerances, one of the overall gear ratios of the transmission/vehicle, 
the manufacturer can reasonably infer that the vehicle's transmission 
is in ``Neutral.'' NHTSA is amending the guidelines to make clear that 
such inference is acceptable for the purposes of the NHTSA Guidelines.
    It is possible for a vehicle equipped with manual transmission to 
travel at a significant speed while in Neutral even though the 
vehicle's parking brake is ``On.'' This situation could occur, for 
example, while coasting down a long steep hill if the vehicle's parking 
brake was only lightly applied. To ensure that inferring that the 
vehicle's transmission is in ``Neutral'' while the vehicle's parking 
brake ``On'' does not result in unreasonable decisions as to whether a 
vehicle is driving, NHTSA has added an additional condition that should 
be met: for a manual transmission vehicle not to be considered driving, 
the vehicle's speed should be less than 5 mph.
    The revised definition of driving is:
    Driving means whenever the vehicle's means of propulsion (engine 
and/or motor) is activated unless one of the following conditions is 
met:
     For a vehicle equipped with a transmission with a ``Park'' 
position--The vehicle's transmission is in the ``Park'' position.
     For a vehicle equipped with a transmission without a 
``Park'' position--All three of the following conditions are met:
    [cir] The vehicle's parking brake is engaged, and
    [cir] The vehicle's transmission is known (via direct measurement 
with a sensor) or inferred (by calculating that the rotational speed of 
the engine divided by the rotational speed of the driven wheels does 
not equal, allowing for production and measurement tolerances, one of 
the overall gear ratios of the transmission/vehicle) to be in the 
neutral position, and
    [cir] The vehicle's speed is less than 5 mph.

E. Per Se Lock Out Issues

1. The NHTSA Guidelines Should Not Recommend Per Se Lock Outs of 
Devices, Functions, and/or Tasks
a. Summary of Comments
    Vehicle manufacturers were generally against the inclusion of per 
se lock outs in NHTSA's Guidelines. Mercedes-Benz commented that the 
concept of per se lock outs is fundamentally unsound and ``does not 
follow the agency's own criteria to make data driven decisions.'' Ford 
and Chrysler specifically recommended elimination of the per se lock 
out of tasks. The German Association of Automotive Industry, MEMA, the 
Alliance, and vehicle manufacturers including Chrysler, Ford, General 
Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, and Volkswagen 
recommended that NHTSA's guidelines should rely on a data-driven, 
performance-based approach. The Alliance commented that ``decisions to 
limit or lock out the availability of specific features and functions 
to the driver should only be made based on performance data tied to 
real world crash risk--not by name or belief.'' Ford specifically 
commented that ``Per Se lockouts in general, and the specific one for 
`text messaging' should be eliminated because appropriate lockouts will 
result from the existing criteria in the Alliance Guideline, such as 
limits on glance length and the total-eyes-off-road-time.'' General 
Motors stated in regard to the per se lock outs, ``The specificity of 
these requirements is very limiting and not necessary.''
    NAFA supported the per se lock out of tasks as included in NHTSA's 
proposed guidelines, with the exception that they strongly preferred 
``having lockout apply when the vehicle is stopped but transmission is 
still engaged.''
    Multiple vehicle manufacturers, most notably Ford, indicated that 
the per se lock outs, as written, were insufficiently clear and overly 
broad and therefore, difficult to implement.
    Both BMW and Toyota commented that NHTSA's inclusion of per se lock 
out of certain tasks is an inappropriate interpretation of the Alliance 
Guidelines.
    Both MEMA and Nissan indicated in their comments concern that per 
se lock out of tasks may hinder future innovation. MEMA commented that 
while lock out of some tasks ``may be suitable in some cases (such as, 
restricting video entertainment visible to the driver),'' others, if 
retained, ``could negatively impact future technology development and 
constrain innovation of feature functions and applications.'' Nissan 
stated that ``per se lockouts should be determined carefully and 
scientifically so that the guidelines do not prevent future 
technological improvements or advances.'' Nissan commented that per se 
lock outs should be reserved for tasks which are difficult to define or 
those tasks that cannot be evaluated using the prescribed performance 
tests.
    Nissan recommended removing Section V.5.h of the proposed NHTSA 
Guidelines, which states:
    V.5.h The per se lock outs listed above are intended to 
specifically prohibit a driver from performing the following while 
driving:
     Watching video footage,
     Visual-manual text messaging,
     Visual-manual internet browsing, and
     Visual-manual social media browsing.
    Two commenters recommended that NHTSA eliminate the per se lock out 
for certain tasks. Ford requested that text messaging, internet 
browsing, and social media browsing not be subject to per se lock out. 
Toyota requested that internet and social media browsing not be subject 
to per se lock out.
b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA's proposed Visual-Manual Driver Distraction Guidelines 
included a list of specific in-vehicle device tasks that NHTSA 
considers ``unsafe for performance by the driver while driving.'' These 
include 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), 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), and activities identified 
in industry driver distraction guidelines which NHTSA agrees are likely 
to distract drivers significantly (e.g., displaying video or 
automatically scrolling text).
    Tasks such as displaying video and displaying text to be read are 
likely to distract drivers but may not be testable due to being 
unbounded or because they vary in magnitude. As a result, asserting a 
specific task start or end point would be somewhat arbitrary, rendering 
them not ``testable.'' Therefore, a data-driven approach using 
acceptance testing as a basis for determining whether to lock out these 
tasks does not appear to be feasible. A data-driven approach using

[[Page 24850]]

crash data is also not currently feasible given the very limited amount 
of data collected to date for these new electronic distractions.
    While Nissan commented that per se lock outs ``should be reserved 
for tasks which are difficult to define or those that cannot be 
evaluated using the prescribed tests,'' NHTSA believes that some 
testable tasks are also inappropriate for performance while driving, 
including activities that are discouraged by public policy and 
activities that are generally accepted as lock outs in industry 
guidelines which NHTSA agrees are likely to distract the driver 
significantly. Both BMW and Toyota commented that NHTSA's inclusion of 
per se lock out of certain tasks is an inappropriate interpretation of 
the Alliance Guidelines. NHTSA notes that several of the tasks that the 
agency has indicated should be locked out (e.g., displaying video, 
automatically-scrolling text) are also those that the Alliance 
Guidelines indicate ``should be disabled while the vehicle is in motion 
or should be only presented in such a way that the driver cannot see it 
while the vehicle is in motion,'' and NHTSA agrees that these tasks for 
lock out are tasks that are likely to be significantly distracting.
    Regarding recommendations that NHTSA eliminate the per se lock out 
of text messaging, internet browsing, and social media browsing, the 
agency initially notes that these activities were not included in the 
proposal as tasks subject to per se lock out. Rather, as stated in the 
Initial Notice, the agency intended that these activities would be 
inaccessible to the driver while driving as a result of the per se lock 
outs of manual text entry and displaying text to be read. Eliminating 
text messaging, internet browsing, and social media browsing while 
driving has been a focus of the Department of Transportation's efforts 
to end distracted driving, and these activities are also prohibited by 
many State anti-texting laws and the Executive Order titled ``Federal 
Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging While Driving.'' Although, as 
discussed below, NHTSA is amending the per se lock outs of manual text 
entry and displaying text to be read, the agency intends that these per 
se lock outs effectively render the activities of visual-manual text 
messaging, internet browsing, and social media browsing inaccessible to 
the driver while driving.
    NHTSA emphasizes that the agency remains open to amending the NHTSA 
Guidelines, including the per se lock outs, in the future in response 
to new information.
    In response to the comments on individual per se lock outs, NHTSA 
has revised the list of per se lock outs, clarified the descriptions of 
the per se lock outs, and added definitions as needed.
2. Per Se Lock Out Relating to Displaying Text to be Read
a. Summary of Comments
    Multiple commenters stated that NHTSA misunderstood the recommended 
limit for the maximum amount of text to be displayed to the driver at 
one time that is contained in the Japan Automobile Manufacturers 
Association Guidelines for In-vehicle Display Systems--Version 3.0 
(referred to as the ``JAMA Guidelines'').\130\ Quoting from a typical 
comment, that submitted by the Alliance:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, ``Guideline 
for In-Vehicle Display Systems, Version 3.0,'' Japan Automobile 
Manufacturers Association, Tokyo, Japan, August 2004.

JAMA 30 Character Limits Were Inappropriately Applied to English 
Characters

    The agency states that it based ``the 30 character limit in the 
NHTSA Guidelines on the amount of text that may be read comes from 
the JAMA Guidelines.'' However, the JAMA guidelines are referring to 
Japanese language symbols (Kanji) and not English language Roman 
characters. The Alliance recommends that systems be evaluated with 
performance criteria and that NHTSA eliminate the potentially 
redundant and overly restrictive concept of character limits.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ Comments received from the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, p. 2. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0104.

    The Alliance also pointed out that the number of English language 
Roman characters corresponding to 30 Kanji characters may vary 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
considerably:

    30 Japanese symbols can have a widely varying amount of 
corresponding English text as shown below.
    Example for traffic information message:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26AP13.001
    
30 characters in Japanese, 93 characters in English translation:
    Speed attention Sharp curve, Speed attention Upslope ahead, 
Caution traffic merging from left
    Example for news story:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26AP13.002
    
    30 characters in Japanese, 133 characters in English 
translation:
    The introduction of a new environmental tax which contains the 
increased tax rate of oil and coal to reduce greenhouse effect 
gases.
    However, as these examples show, the number of English language 
Roman characters corresponding to 30 Kanji characters greatly 
exceeds 30.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ Ibid, p. 11.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliance comments also state:

    A recent driving simulator study conducted by Hoffman et al. 
(2005) provides glance data that can be used for engineering 
purposes. This study found that a display with 4 lines totaling 170 
characters could be read in 11 seconds. Mean single glance time did 
not exceed 1.14 seconds, which is below the 2.0-second criterion set 
by the Alliance guidelines and adopted by the NHTSA guidelines. The 
CAMP DWM project sponsored by NHTSA found a similar result for an 
occlusion study with a similar experimental design. Both studies 
result in approximately 15.4 characters per second.
    Based on these studies, the number of characters that a person 
can read per second is approximately 15 in a driving environment. 
However, it is important to put this into context; drivers do not 
typically read each letter in a sentence; rather, they extract 
meaning from the words presented (Campbell, Carney, & Kantowitz, 
1998). Indeed, people can skim up to 700 words per minute and an 8th 
grade reading level is approximately 200 words per minute (Crowder, 
1982). In other words, the number of characters in a message is a 
proxy for the actual amount of information in the message.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ Ibid, p. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance recommends that systems be evaluated with 
performance criteria and that NHTSA eliminate the potentially 
redundant and overly restrictive concept of character limits.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ Ibid, p. 2.


[[Page 24851]]


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

    During the March 23, 2012 Technical Workshop on NHTSA's proposed 
Driver Distraction Guidelines, Mr. James Foley of Toyota showed a slide 
picturing a contemporary radio display showing several lines of text 
indicating satellite radio station program information (See Figure 2 
below). He then asked:

    How do we apply the 30-character limit to this display? If it 
means a whole display can only contain 30 characters, if you look at 
just the six preset buttons, each preset button has five characters. 
So once we have the presets presented to the user, we can't give 
them any other information about what the radio is doing. If you 
pick any one element within this display, you quickly exceed a 30-
character limit * * * 135
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ Transcript of the Technical Workshop--March 23, 2012, p. 
52. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, 
Document Number 0054.
    \136\ Materials presented at the Technical Workshop--March 23, 
2012, p. 39. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-
0053, Document Number 0045.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26AP13.003


    Mr. Foley then pointed out that the information conveyed by this 
display is easily grasped and that drivers do not have to read each 
individual letter to understand what is being transmitted by this 
display.
    Honda commented that research has shown that native English 
speakers achieve higher levels of comprehension and lower levels of 
critical confusion when most information is presented in text form, as 
opposed to symbols or icons.
b. NHTSA's Response
    As stated in the Initial Notice, the JAMA Guidelines were the 
source of NHTSA's proposed 30-character limit for the maximum amount of 
text that should be read in one task. The JAMA Guidelines discuss the 
maximum amount of text that should be displayed to a driver at one time 
in two places. Quoting from the main portion of the JAMA Guidelines:

    The number of letters (e.g., characters, kana, alphabets) 
displayed at a time shall not exceed 31, provided that a number such 
as ``120'' or a unit such as ``km/h'' is deemed to be a single 
letter irrespective of the number of digits. Punctuation marks are 
not included in the count of letters.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, ``Guideline 
for In-Vehicle Display Systems, Version 3.0,'' Japan Automobile 
Manufacturers Association, Tokyo, Japan, August 2004, p. 7.

    Limits on the number of characters to be displayed to the driver, 
along with the reasons for the limits selected, are also discussed in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Appendix to the JAMA Guidelines:

    The display of 31 or more letters at a time is also prohibited 
while the vehicle is in motion, for the following reasons:
    a. The results of a test conducted in 1992 suggested that 30 is 
the maximum number of letters that drivers can read without feeling 
rushed.
    b. The maximum number of letters contained in the level-1 
dynamic information display is 30 per screen. To harmonize 
communication between level-1 FM multiplex broadcast and in-vehicle 
display systems it is necessary to set the maximum number of letters 
on in-vehicle display system screen at 30.
    The letters are counted as follows according to the Guideline:
    a. A number such as ``120'' or a unit such as ``km/h'' is deemed 
to be a single letter irrespective of the number of digits.
    b. Punctuation marks are not included in the count of 
letters.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ Ibid, p. 13.

    The JAMA Guidelines seem to imply that their 30 character 
recommendation applies to both Japanese characters and English language 
Roman characters (``number of letters (e.g., characters, kana, 
alphabets) displayed''). However, NHTSA agrees that changes should be 
made to our per se lock out relating to reading.
    In response to comments opposing the use of a 30-character limit 
for reading by

[[Page 24852]]

a driver as part of a non-driving-related task, NHTSA considered its 
options. NHTSA is not aware of another existing source of data on which 
to base a character limit for non-driving-related task reading by a 
driver. The per se lock out of all possible non-driving-related reading 
tasks is not reasonable, since this would impact existing displayed 
information such as the time of day and radio station identifiers.
    While commenters suggested that instead of the 30-character limit 
NHTSA should recommend that tasks involving reading should be subject 
to the acceptance test protocol, that suggestion would not be easy to 
implement. For example, the definition of a ``testable'' task states 
that a ``typical or average length input should be used.'' Therefore, 
for reading to be considered a testable task, the average magnitude of 
possible reading associated with foreseeable non-driving-related tasks 
would need to be known. However, the average length of reading could 
differ greatly depending on the nature of the non-driving-related task. 
As a result, specifying how to test all possible reading-related tasks 
was not considered to be a reasonable option.
    NHTSA believes that a per se lock out is necessary to address our 
concerns about non-driving-related tasks involving reading. NHTSA's 
concern primarily relates to non-driving-related tasks involving 
reading that could be considered to fall into the categories of either 
visually-perceived entertainment or communications not essential to 
safe driving. These activities interfere with a driver's ability to 
safely control a vehicle in that they encourage the driver to look away 
from the road in order to continue reading. These are also the types of 
activities that are difficult to classify as a testable task.
    Based on the above-noted issues and consideration of submitted 
comments, in this notice NHTSA is revising our per se lock out of 
reading displayed text. The revised recommendation addresses certain 
types of textual information that is not related to driving, rather 
than specifying an allowable number of characters that may be read. The 
specific revised per se lock out language is as follows:
    Displaying Text to Be Read. The visual presentation, within view of 
a driver properly restrained by a seat belt, of the following types of 
non-driving-related task textual information:
     Books
     Periodical publications (including newspapers, magazines, 
articles)
     Web page content
     Social media content
     Text-based advertising and marketing
     Text-based messages (see definition) and correspondence 
(not including standard, preset message menu content displayed in the 
context of a task that meets acceptance test criteria)
    However, the visual presentation of limited amounts of other types 
of text during a testable task is acceptable. The maximum amount of 
text that should be visually presented during a single testable task 
should be determined by the task acceptance tests contained in these 
Guidelines.

This per se lock out is limited to text in the listed categories and is 
not intended to apply to text related to the safe operation of the 
vehicle, including text intended to notify the driver of an emergency 
situation that presents a safety risk to vehicle occupants, such as 
extreme weather.
    In addition, this version of the NHTSA Guidelines incorporates the 
legibility criteria contained in ISO Standard 15008,\139\ which 
provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ Road vehicles--Ergonomic aspects of transport information 
and control systems--Specifications and compliance procedures for 
in-vehicle visual presentation. First edition, 2003-03-15

minimum specifications for the image quality and legibility of 
displays containing dynamic (changeable) visual information 
presented to the driver of a road vehicle by on-board transport 
information and control systems (TICS) used while the vehicle is in 
motion. These specifications are intended to be independent of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
display technologies * * *''

    Incorporation of ISO 15008 criteria serves to ensure that text is 
presented with sufficient character size to allow easy reading by a 
driver with 20/20 or better vision and restrained by a seat belt.
    In response to Toyota's question about what text should be included 
in a reading task; NHTSA believes that only the text relevant to the 
particular task being performed should be considered part of the task. 
Nearby text unrelated to the task being performed should not be 
included as part of the text that is read for a particular task. 
Control and display labels should generally not be considered text that 
is read during a task that involves the use of a labeled control or 
display.
3. Per Se Lock Out of Manual Text Entry
a. Summary of Comments
    Comments from several parties expressed opposition to the proposed 
per se lock out of manual text entry greater than six button presses. 
These commenters included the Alliance, Global Automakers, BMW, Ford, 
General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, and Volvo. Global Automakers, 
Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, and Volvo specifically recommended that 
tasks involving manual text entry be subject to the acceptance test 
rather than a per se lock out. The Alliance specifically commented that 
the ``Per se lock out of a specific number of button presses is 
inappropriate since `button presses' can encompass many different 
interface technologies/designs that do not have the same levels of 
visual/manual distraction potential.'' General Motors recommended that 
text entry based tasks be subject to an acceptance test involving the 
Alliance acceptance criteria of 20-second eyes-off-road-time and 2-
second mean glance duration.
    Multiple commenters requested clarification on this per se lock out 
of manual text entry greater than six button presses. Chrysler asked 
whether the manual text entry limit applies to text or phone number 
inputs, but not to other task related button presses. The Alliance and 
Mercedes-Benz asked whether this task per se lock out covered push-
button type interfaces or other types also, and whether the restriction 
was intended to apply only to manual text entry as part of an overall 
``task'' or to button presses required for an entire task. Mercedes-
Benz commented that the exclusion of tasks requiring more than 6 button 
presses, including 10-digit phone dialing, is too stringent and 
unnecessary or inappropriate if the task passes the acceptance test. 
BMW commented that NHTSA's proposed lock out of manual text entry 
greater than six button presses was not justified and ignores the 
concept of interruptibility.
    MEMA asked for clarification of whether ``the utilization of an in-
vehicle touch-pad sensor that reads finger-drawn letters and numbers 
would be considered restricted under the per se lockouts'' and whether 
the technology would ``fall under the agency's limits on button 
presses?''
b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA wishes to clarify that the per se lock out of manual text 
entry contained in the Initial Notice encompasses input of both 
alphabetical and numeric characters entered individually, in the 
context of performing any non-driving-related task or part thereof, 
except numeric phone dialing which is subject to the acceptance test 
protocol. This provides compatibility with the treatment of phone 
dialing outlined in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSR) 
49 CFR 392.80, Prohibition

[[Page 24853]]

Against Texting (issued September 27, 2010).
    The lock out does not apply to manual input actions by the driver 
for a purpose other than the entry of individual alphanumeric 
characters. For example, pressing a radio preset button would not be 
covered by this per se lock out.
    With regard to what types of visual-manual interfaces may be 
covered by this per se lock out, NHTSA clarifies that it applies to 
manual text entry regardless of the type of visual-manual interface 
involved. Interface types affected would include those for which a 
driver would use his or her hand or a part thereof to input individual 
characters to a system in the context of performing a non-driving task. 
Examples of such interface types include, but are not limited to, those 
accepting inputs via hard button, soft (e.g., capacitive) button, touch 
screen, finger-drawn characters, and gestures.
    NHTSA disagrees with BMW that the proposed per se lock out of 
manual text entry ignores the concept of interruptibility because there 
was no time limit for how long the driver could take to perform those 
six inputs. NHTSA recommended a limit on the amount of manual text 
entry because of concerns that manual text entry while driving affects 
safety (see Figure 1).
    The intent of NHTSA's per se lock outs of manual text entry greater 
than six button presses and of reading more than 30 characters was to 
effectively prevent drivers from engaging in visual-manual tasks such 
as text-based messaging, internet browsing, and social media browsing 
while driving. The DOT believes that preventing drivers from engaging 
in text-based messaging or communications while driving is important 
for safety. Text-entry and reading are highly visual tasks that are 
likely to hinder a driver's safe maneuvering of the vehicle. As noted 
by the Alliance, no data were presented in the proposal to support the 
assertion that single button presses take 2 seconds to perform.
    The language for the per se lock out of manual text entry has been 
revised to specifically recommend against the following:
    Manual Text Entry. Manual text entry by the driver for the purpose 
of text-based messaging, other communication, or internet browsing.
4. Per Se Lock Out of Graphical and Photographic Images
a. Summary of Comments
    Multiple commenters were opposed to the per se lock out of static 
graphical and photographic images. The Alliance, Ford, Honda, Toyota, 
and Volvo recommended that it be eliminated from NHTSA's Visual-Manual 
Driver Distraction Guidelines. Agero, BMW, and Toyota stated that NHTSA 
does not provide justification substantiating this recommended per se 
lock out. Global Automakers, Agero, Ford, and Nissan recommended that 
instead of a per se lock out, graphical and photographical image 
presentation should be subject to the acceptance test protocols. BMW 
commented that NHTSA did not sufficiently distinguish between driving-
related images and non-driving-related images in the proposed 
Guidelines.
    Global Automakers and Honda advocated for NHTSA's Guidelines to 
follow Alliance Guidelines Principle 2.2, which states:

    Where appropriate, internationally agreed upon standards or 
recognized industry practice relating to legibility, icons, symbols, 
words, acronyms, or abbreviations should be used. Where no standards 
exist, relevant design guidelines or empirical data should be used.

    Chrysler requested clarification that the lock out of 
photorealistic images is not intended to apply to icons or logos. 
Similarly, the Alliance commented that:

    * * * the prohibition to display an image not related to driving 
appears to be too narrow in its definition and they believe would 
prohibit display of company logos, navigation screen images such as 
McDonald's arches, Starbucks' logo, Gasoline logos like Shell.

    The Alliance, Garmin, Honda, Mercedes-Benz, and Nissan indicated 
that such images may improve comprehension and response times relative 
to text and should be permitted. MEMA commented that visual images 
generally should be less distracting than text.
    Nissan stated that some images can provide functionality similar to 
an icon, to help discern information without reading (like album art 
versus a title) and requested that some static images be allowed if 
they meet acceptance criteria. Nissan stated that they specifically 
believe that some items ``support a driver's ability to search for 
information, recognize system status, and identify goals and could be 
considered as providing the functionality of an icon'' (e.g., album 
cover art, photo of person's face to identify a contact, photos of 
landmarks to support navigation functions).
    Honda's comment included their own research data that they 
interpret as indicating that the display of static images such as album 
cover art did not significantly affect driving performance and met the 
Alliance Guidelines' Principle 2.1 criteria. Honda conducted a 
simulator-based study examining the eye glance behavior, lane position, 
and headway exhibited by 20 test participants while performing an album 
art recognition task. Drivers were shown a small album art image (that 
they were unfamiliar with) for 20 seconds and then asked to select the 
correct image from a set of 4 images. Honda's data showed that the 85th 
percentile of single glance duration was 1.73 seconds. Results showed 
no statistically significant effect of the album art task on time 
headway or average right side margin. Based on those data, Honda 
recommended that static images not related to driving (e.g., family 
photographs) should not be prohibited.
    Honda also commented that research has shown that native English 
speakers achieve higher levels of comprehension and lower levels of 
critical confusion when most information is presented in text form, as 
opposed to symbols or icons.
b. NHTSA's Response
    In response to commenters' requests for clarification of this 
recommendation, Guideline language relating to the display of static, 
visual non-driving-related images has been improved for clarity. NHTSA 
believes the language improvements will address some of the concerns 
related to this recommendation. In addition, a definition of non-
driving-related graphical or photographic images \140\ has been added 
to these Guidelines. For the purposes of these Guidelines, such images 
are defined as any graphical or photographic image that does not 
qualify as ``video'' and that is associated with a non-driving-related 
task. This notice clarifies driving-related tasks to include 
interactions with vehicle information centers, multi-function displays, 
emissions controls, fuel economy information displays, trip odometers, 
and route navigation systems. NHTSA has removed the word ``static'' 
from the per se lock out of graphical and photographic images and added 
the word ``non-video'' to the definition to clarify that non-video 
images that move or scroll are also not recommended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ Underlined terms are defined in Section IV. Definitions of 
the NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA agrees with the suggestion by Global Automakers and Honda to 
follow Alliance Principle 2.2, which recommends the use of 
``internationally agreed upon standards or recognized

[[Page 24854]]

industry practice relating to legibility, icons, symbols, words, 
acronyms, or abbreviations.'' NHTSA further suggests that in addition 
to internationally standardized symbols and icons, simple, well-known 
TrademarkTM and Registered[supreg] symbols, such as company 
logos, may in some cases be useful in presenting information to a 
driver and are not encompassed by the per se lock out. Along these 
lines, company logos presented statically are also acceptable for 
display. The newly added definition of non-driving-related graphical or 
photographic images clarifies these symbols and icons as being 
acceptable by stating that ``Internationally standardized symbols and 
icons, as well as simple TrademarkTM and Registered[supreg] 
symbols, are not considered graphical or photographic images.
    NHTSA carefully reviewed submitted comments favoring presentation 
of visual images and found many of them to focus on the possible 
benefits afforded by such images in aiding a driver making a selection 
in the context of a task performed using an in-vehicle electronic 
device. Most notable is Nissan's suggestion that for some tasks, 
presentation of a visual image may ``support a driver's ability to 
search for information'' and Honda's description of research showing 
that an album art recognition task can meet the Alliance Guidelines 2-
second maximum individual glance length criterion and 20-seconds total 
eyes-off-road-time criterion while having no significant impact on time 
headway or lane position maintenance.
    NHTSA to date has not performed research addressing the issue of 
non-video, visual images or the impact of album art display on a 
secondary task involving music selection and appreciates Honda's 
submission of research data. We believe that Honda's research would 
have been more informative if a treatment condition involving a text 
description of music selections and no album art had been included. 
That may have helped to demonstrated how album art is superior to 
traditional text display of music selections. The album art task could 
have also been more relevant if the driver were prompted using words to 
search for a particular album or song, instead of matching album art 
images. Finally, while the results show no significant effect of 
Honda's album art task on time headway or lane position, the lack of an 
effect does not indicate that the album art task is associated with the 
same level of driving performance as that observed in a baseline 
condition (i.e., no secondary task).
    NHTSA believes it is plausible that for certain tasks the display 
of a related static image may aid the driver in selecting an option 
that meets his or her task goal. However, NHTSA remains concerned that 
a driver unfamiliar with those images, or particularly fond of those 
images, may perform a selection task less efficiently when a static 
image is displayed or may choose to glance at the image frequently and 
for unsafe durations of time.
    In general, NHTSA is concerned that non-driving-related graphical 
and photographic images not essential to the driving task could 
distract the driver by unnecessarily drawing his or her eyes away from 
the roadway, thereby increasing crash risk. Past analyses of 
naturalistic data have shown that a driver's glances away from the 
forward roadway of up to 2.0 seconds in duration have no statistically 
significant effect on the risk of a crash or near-crash event 
occurring. However, eyes-off-road times of greater than 2.0 seconds 
have been shown to increase risk at a statistically significant level. 
The risk of a crash or near-crash event increases rapidly as eyes-off-
road time increases above 2.0 seconds.\141\ NHTSA is concerned that 
unnecessary graphical and photographic images within view of the driver 
will increase the frequency and duration of a driver's eyes being 
averted from the forward roadway. NHTSA believes that an increase in 
visual entertainment for a driver is not worth a potential decrease in 
safety. Having said that, some images may be useful to drivers and 
NHTSA does not intend for the NHTSA Guidelines to hinder use of these 
helpful images.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful review of comments and submitted information, NHTSA 
has weighed the possible advantages and disadvantages of presenting 
such images and believes that an intermediate position between the 
original proposal and blanket allowance of such images is reasonable. 
To balance the potential advantages with the disadvantages with which 
NHTSA is concerned, the per se lock out has been revised in this notice 
to permit non-video images to be displayed during certain non-driving 
tasks to aid the driver in searching for an item of interest as long as 
the image is automatically extinguished upon completion of the 
selection task. Removing the task-related image upon completion of the 
task ensures that the image is not available to visually distract the 
driver.
    NHTSA has also replaced the proposed language regarding quasi-
static and static maps with language clarifying that while the display 
of maps is acceptable under these Guidelines, maps that are displayed 
should only contain informational detail not critical to navigation and 
not have unnecessary complexity (i.e., photorealistic images, satellite 
images, or three-dimensional images are not recommended) that may cause 
too much distraction. This language better conveys NHTSA's original 
intentions regarding the display of maps: That the amount of time it 
takes the driver to extract information from the map should be 
minimized.
    The specific revised Guideline language from Section V.F is as 
follows:
    Displaying Images. Displaying (or permitting the display of) non-
video graphical or photographic images.
    Exceptions:
    a. Displaying driving-related images including maps (assuming the 
presentation of this information conforms to all other recommendations 
of these Guidelines). However, the display of map informational detail 
not critical to navigation, such as photorealistic images, satellite 
images, or three-dimensional images is not recommended.
    b. Static graphical and photographic images displayed for the 
purpose of aiding a driver to efficiently make a selection in the 
context of a non-driving-related task (e.g., music) is acceptable if 
the image automatically extinguishes from the display upon completion 
of the task. If appropriate, these images may be presented along with 
short text descriptions that conform to these Guidelines.
    c. Internationally standardized symbols and icons, as well as 
Trademark\TM\ and Registered[supreg] symbols, are not considered static 
graphical or photographic images.
    The recommendation for a short text description to accompany the 
displayed images associated with non-driving-related tasks is in 
response to Honda's comment that research indicates ``that native 
English speakers achieve higher levels of comprehension and lower 
levels of critical confusion when most information is presented in text 
form, as opposed to symbols or icons.'' Text accompanying static images 
should meet other criteria recommended in NHTSA's Guidelines.
5. Per Se Lock Out of Displaying Video Images--Dynamic Maps
a. Summary of Comments
    In response to proposed Section V.5.b ``Dynamic Moving Maps,'' 
multiple

[[Page 24855]]

commenters opposed the per se lock out including the Alliance, BMW, 
Ford, GM, Nissan, Toyota, and Volvo. Global Automakers and Nissan 
advocated for a performance-based approach to determining the 
acceptability of moving map-related tasks. Multiple commenters, 
including Chrysler, Honda, and Nissan, asked for clarification 
regarding whether NHTSA intended this per se lock out to disallow 
conventional dynamic maps as used in navigation systems that are 
currently in vehicles.
    Mercedes stated:

    Dynamic maps: A dynamic map represents 
``state[hyphen]of[hyphen]the[hyphen]art'' for navigation systems and 
drivers expect a constantly moving map as their vehicle is also 
moving forward. Dynamic maps are not comparable to moving video 
imagery. These maps move slowly and smoothly, so the motion does not 
lead to unwanted attention capture. There is no data driven 
justification to prohibit the use of dynamic map displays. Dynamic 
maps should remain available while driving.

    Honda requested that NHTSA provide criteria for use in determining 
the types of three-dimensional images that interfere with a driver's 
safe operation of the vehicle. Honda did not provide supporting data 
but indicated that they ``believe more realistic and life-like images 
of roadways and landmarks are more quickly correlated with the forward 
view, leading to quicker recognition and reduced driver workload.''
    The Alliance commented that ``Photographic overlays provide 
enhanced details that aid the driver in locating entrances, parking 
lots or other landmarks.''
    The Alliance requested the ability to provide drivers with flexible 
systems with ``multiple viewing and display modes with recognition that 
drivers have different needs, preferences and capabilities for use of 
map information.'' The Alliance further stated that ``Drivers should be 
given the choice as to the type and form of driving aid that best suits 
their needs in a given situation.''
b. NHTSA's Response
    The Guidelines proposal notice including Section V.5.b did not 
clearly relate NHTSA's intent with respect to dynamic displays. The 
purpose of that per se lock out was to deter the introduction of 
unnecessarily complicated navigation system displays. The per se lock 
out was based on NHTSA's concern that navigation system enhancements 
being considered by the industry may lead to substantial unnecessary 
distraction and reduced safety.
    Navigation systems are one of the more complex OE devices available 
to the driver to interact with. NHTSA is concerned about the addition 
of informational detail not critical to navigation and image 
complexity, such as three-dimensional, photographic, full location 
scenery, and/or satellite images that could tempt drivers to look at 
the navigation image more than necessary for route navigation.
    NHTSA's preference for a basic, low-complexity map display stem 
from a December 1995 report \142\, ``Preliminary Human Factors Design 
Guidelines for Driver Information Systems,'' published by the Federal 
Highway Administration, which outlines research-supported guidelines 
for navigation system display content. Chapter 7, titled ``Navigation 
Guidelines--Visual Displays,'' contains recommendations for 
``presentation modality, turn display format (arrows vs. maps, etc.), 
turn display content (which information elements are required), 
labeling of details, and display orientation and placement.'' Some 
relevant excerpts from this chapter are summarized as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ Publication No. FHWA-RD-94-087, December 1995.

    i. Limit the amount of detail on maps.
    Details fall into three categories. They include line graphics 
(roads, political boundaries, rivers, etc.), landmarks (buildings, 
etc.), and labels (street names, route numbers, road names, etc.). 
Line graphics will have a greater effect on response time than will 
the other factors. According to Stilitz and Yitzhaky, the time (in 
seconds) required to locate a street on a map with grids is (0.38 n) 
+ 2.1, where n is the number of roads in the grid (range of 4 to 
25). * * *
    ii. Required information includes the road being driven, the 
name of the road for the next turn, the direction, and approximate 
angle of the next turn, and an indicator of distance to the turn.
    These required items concerning the next turn should be shown 
even if the turn is distant. Additional clarifying information (i.e. 
landmarks, additional streets) should be limited to items that help 
drivers prepare for and execute the maneuver.
    iii. Views of intersections should be plan (directly overhead) 
or aerial (as from a low flying airplane), but not perspective (from 
the driver's eye view).
    Response times and errors in making decisions about 
intersections were examined by Green and Williams, and Williams and 
Green * * *. Differences between aerial and plan views were small. 
Response times and errors for both were significantly lower than 
those for perspective displays. Perspective displays were least 
preferred.
    iv. Provide turn indications using either simple arrow displays 
or simple maps.
    The literature suggests that drivers experience difficulty in 
reading detailed maps while driving * * * Turn displays should 
present the intersection ahead, the direction of the turn, and the 
distance to it. The Walker, et al. research indicates that showing 
only a turn arrow can result in reasonable performance * * *
    v. Roads on map-like displays should be shown as single, solid 
lines, not multiple lines to represent each road edge.
    This guideline is supported by the work of Green and Williams, 
and Williams and Green * * * Participants in experiments made more 
errors and took longer to make decisions in matching map displays 
with real-world scenes when the map graphics were outlines.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ Ibid.

    After considering submitted comments and reviewing the noted 
research, NHTSA has decided to retain the per se lock out covering map 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
displays, but with improved language:

    Map displays. The visual presentation of dynamic map 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 (assuming the 
presentation of this information conforms to all other 
recommendations of these Guidelines). However, the display of 
informational detail not critical to navigation, such as 
photorealistic images, satellite images, or three-dimensional images 
is not recommended.

    NHTSA believes that this clarified per se lock out description for 
dynamics will provide a better understanding of the recommendations and 
guide map display design.
6. Per Se Lock Out of Watching Video--Trailer Hitching
a. Summary of Comments
    Two comments were received with respect to the acceptability of 
displaying rearview images (i.e., live video images of the area 
directly behind a backing vehicle). Global Automakers asserted that 
since the FMVSS that would regulate rearview images is not yet 
finalized, all rearview image displays should be allowed under the 
Guidelines until that rulemaking action is complete. Chrysler advocated 
for the per se lock out relating to video to be revised to permit video 
images of truck bed and trailer contents, as well as the area behind 
the vehicle while a driver is attempting to hitch a trailer to his or 
her vehicle:

    Some vehicles (trucks in particular) have a feature that permits 
customers to display the rear camera images so that they can monitor 
the status of a tower trailer and hitch or the contents in a pick-up 
truck bed while in forward motion. Chrysler believes the display of 
such images will enhance safety by allowing the customer to 
determine whether the contents of the truck bed are properly stowed 
or whether the trailer hitch chains are attached. Chrysler 
recommended that

[[Page 24856]]

NHTSA's guidelines be harmonized with the Alliance's efforts to 
expand the scope of FMVSS 111 to permit images while in forward 
motion for the purposes of enhancing safety.
b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA agrees that referring to a FMVSS that is not yet finalized is 
not appropriate and has revised the per se lock out in this notice. 
NHTSA also agrees that a driver can more efficiently hitch a trailer 
with the aid of a video image showing the area immediately behind his 
or her vehicle. As such, we have revised the language for the per se 
lock out of ``Displaying Video'' and included a limited exception that 
allows a video image to be presented for the purposes of aiding a 
driver to perform a hitching or backing maneuver. However, we believe 
that it is important for safety to ensure that a driver cannot view a 
rear video image while driving forward outside the context of a 
hitching or backing maneuver. To address this concern, the revised 
language includes limits on the display of video. The revised language 
for the per se lock out of ``displaying video'' is as follows:
    Displaying Video. Displaying (or permitting the display of) video 
including, but not limited to, video-based entertainment and video-
based communications including video phoning and videoconferencing.
    Exceptions:
    a. The display of video images when presented in accordance with 
the requirements of any FMVSS.
    b. The display of a video image of the area directly behind a 
vehicle for the purpose of aiding a driver performing a maneuver in 
which the vehicle's transmission is in reverse gear (including parking, 
trailer hitching), until any of the following conditions occurs:
    i. The vehicle reaches a maximum forward speed of 10 mph;
    ii After the vehicle has shifted out of reverse, it has traveled a 
maximum of 10 meters; or
    iii. After the vehicle has shifted out of reverse, a maximum of 10 
seconds has elapsed.
    The 10-mph limit specified in exception `i' is based on the 
likelihood that a driver whose speed has increased to 10 mph has 
concluded his or her hitching maneuver. Likewise, when a vehicle has 
traveled forward a distance of 10 meters or more or 10 seconds have 
elapsed, the driver's intention to hitch a trailer has likely 
concluded. NHTSA believes that these limits will reasonably accommodate 
any typical backing or hitching maneuver while ensuring that drivers 
cannot view video of the area behind the car while driving forward.
    Regarding Chrysler's comments as to the ``Alliance's efforts to 
expand the scope of FMVSS 111,'' NHTSA is unaware of such activity. 
However, the Guidelines contain an exception that allows presentation 
of video required by a FMVSS.
7. Per Se Lock Out of Automatically Scrolling Lists and Text
a. Summary of Comments
    Commenters opposed to the per se lock out of automatically 
scrolling lists included Global Automakers, Mercedes-Benz, and Volvo. 
For example, Global Automakers stated:

    We suggest that the following items should NOT be subject to per 
se lockouts and should be allowable if the system is able to meet 
the evaluation criteria:
    * * * Continuously scrolling text (for example, the Radio 
Broadcast Data System (RBDS)/Radio Data System (RDS) has been 
available for many years and should continue to be allowed).

    Mercedes-Benz likewise commented

    Short scrolling lists: There should be no ``per se'' limitation 
of the length of scrolling lists. There are methods (e.g. search 
algorithms) which enable drivers to smoothly navigate lists. If a 
specific scrolling list execution passes performance testing then it 
should be available for use while driving.
b. NHTSA's Response
    The per se lock-out of automatically scrolling text is based on 
several of the guiding principles of NHTSA's Guidelines including the 
principle that ``the driver's eyes should usually be looking at the 
road ahead,'' and the principle that ``the driver should control the 
pace of task interactions, not the system/device.'' Automatically 
scrolling text can violate one or both of these principles. 
Specifically, automatically scrolling text is generally likely to 
distract the driver and is among the types of visual information that 
the Alliance Guidelines recommend disabling while driving. 
Additionally, when used as part of a task (e.g., selecting an item from 
an automatically scrolling list) automatically scrolling text requires 
the driver to receive and process information without the ability to 
control the rate of information display. NHTSA thus rejects commenters' 
recommendations to not include the per se lock out of automatically 
scrolling text.
    With regard to the specific example of automatically scrolling text 
referenced by Global Automakers, Radio Broadcast Data System (RBDS)/
Radio Data System (RDS), it was not NHTSA's intention to lock out the 
display of such information. Rather, NHTSA's Guidelines are meant to 
encourage the display of such information in ways that are not 
excessively distracting. NHTSA notes that there are alternative ways of 
displaying RBDS/RDS data that do not involve automatically scrolling 
text.
    NHTSA is uncertain what Mercedes-Benz was referring to in its 
comment about list length and ``methods that enable drivers to smoothly 
navigate lists.'' The per se lockout applies only to automatically 
scrolling text. There are alternative ways to display lists of varying 
lengths that do not involve automatically scrolling text.
8. Clarify Acceptability of Technology That Allows the Driver and 
Passenger To See Different Content From Same Visual Display
a. Summary of Comments
    Nissan requested clarification regarding whether NHTSA's proposed 
per se lock outs of static graphical or photographic images and video 
apply only to display content visible to a person seated in a normal 
driving position. Nissan noted that:

    emerging technology will make it possible for two viewers to see 
different content in the same screen depending on their locations 
and viewing angles.

    Nissan also requested that NHTSA clarify the intent of the per se 
lock out of static images and video by adding the phrase, ``which are 
visible to a driver restrained by a seat belt.''
b. NHTSA's Response
    Nissan is correct that the intent of the per se lock outs for 
static graphical or photographic images and video were intended by 
NHTSA to apply only to images within view of a driver properly 
restrained by a seat belt. To clarify this, the recommendations against 
displaying video and images have been revised in the Guidelines to 
apply only if the video or images are ``within view of the driver 
properly restrained by a seat belt.''

F. Task Acceptance Test Protocol Issues

1. Suggestions for Other Acceptance Test Protocols
a. Summary of Comments
    Several commenters recommended inclusion of a particular method of 
testing in the final version of the NHTSA Guidelines. Some suggestions 
were directed at options as presented in the proposal while others were 
directed at inclusion of different methods not proposed as test 
procedures in the Initial Notice. In his comments, Professor Richard A. 
Young assessed the

[[Page 24857]]

various testing options and provided the following conclusion:

    A test using fixed criteria that measures glance properties, as 
well as event detection, in the same test of driver performance 
while doing a secondary visual-manual task, is therefore the minimum 
test that I would recommend for final validation of a task.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ Comments received from Professor Richard A. Young, p. 8. 
Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 0106.

    He underscored the importance of including a detection task as part 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the test protocol:

    * * * any of the NHTSA proposed tests for visual-manual 
distraction which do not include some sort of peripheral detection 
task (PDT) as part of the test will not address the attention 
dimension as it relates to detection and response of on-road events, 
and are therefore likely to produce false negative errors.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Ibid, p.7.

    Professor Young discussed the Option DFD-FC: Dynamic Following and 
Detection Protocol with Fixed Acceptance Criteria test procedure 
proposed in the Initial Notice and identified the attributes that he 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
considered essential to a suitable test procedure:

    It should minimize both false negative and false positive errors 
compared to the other tests because it has the most comprehensive 
set of metrics. The test uses fixed criteria, and does not use the 
radio tuning test as a benchmark * * * so the relatively poor event 
detection associated with the radio tuning test need not lead to 
false negative errors.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ Ibid.

    Two commenters (Mercedes-Benz and the Alliance) requested the 
inclusion of driving performance-based acceptance test protocols in 
addition to the eye glance-related driving protocols that NHTSA 
preferred in the Initial Notice. The following comment was submitted by 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes-Benz:

    The driver's ability to maintain headway and keep their vehicle 
within lane boundaries are fundamental elements of safe driving 
performance. Laboratory eye glance assessment provides a simplified 
measure to infer such safe driving performance under dynamic 
conditions. However, if drivers are actually observed reacting to 
changes in a dynamic driving environment by maintaining headway and 
keeping within lane boundaries, assessment of eye glance behavior is 
superfluous. Evaluation of headway variance and lane keeping 
performance measures provide an accurate and sufficient assessment 
of driving performance. The proposed addition of eye glance measure 
to driving performance evaluation is unwarranted.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ Comments received from Mercedes-Benz USA, p. 5. Accessed 
at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 
0093.

    Based on this argument, Mercedes-Benz provided the following 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
recommendation for a test protocol:

    Therefore we recommend using the DS-BM (Driving Test Protocol 
with Benchmark) approach as defined in Alliance Guideline Option 
2.1(B) as the driving test verification protocol.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ Ibid, p. 5.

    Comments from the Alliance were very similar to those provided by 
Mercedes. They echoed the conclusion that the Alliance Guideline Option 
2.1(B) should be included in the final guidelines. They provided the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
following rationale for this recommendation:

    The agency has not provided any research demonstrating how the 
proposed changes to the driving procedure relate to real world crash 
risk. Thus, NHTSA should adopt the Alliance Guidelines Option 2.1(b) 
criteria until a defined safety benefit for different procedures and 
criteria can be demonstrated and validated through analysis of SHRP-
2 naturalistic driving data.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ Comments received from The Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, Technical Appendix, p. 3. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0104.

    As part of their comments, the Alliance requested inclusion of an 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
option focused directly on driving performance:

    * * * it should always be an option to directly evaluate the 
impact of a new information or communication system on driving 
performance, instead of using the surrogate measure of eye glance 
behavior.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ Ibid. Technical Appendix, p. 15.

    Chrysler provided extensive commentary on both the Eye Glance and 
Occlusion methods that NHTSA indicated were preferred over the others 
described in the proposed Guidelines. Chrysler provided the following 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
commentary in support of the Lane Change Test (LCT):

    Chrysler supports LCT testing due to participants frequently 
commenting on the impact that familiarity with a task made on their 
ability to perform the secondary task well. During LCT testing, 
participants were more likely to comment on becoming familiar with 
the driving simulator, while during occlusion testing participants 
commented on memorizing button locations, screen layout and the 
steps involved in task completion.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ Comments received from Chrysler Group, p.4. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0095.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * * * the LCT method offers clear feedback as to performance. 
During the Occlusion testing, a participant has no way of knowing if 
he or she is failing the test. However during the LCT testing people 
are clearly aware of the extent to which their driving performance 
is degrading based on their use of the system. In summary, we 
believe the LCT method most closely represents the driving task 
which is the very focus of these guidelines. It is Chrysler's 
recommendation that LCT testing be included in the final publication 
of NTHSA's proposed guidelines.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ Ibid. pp. 4-5.

    Dr. Paul Green commented that the proposed NHTSA Guidelines' 
acceptance test protocols do not have enough emphasis on prediction and 
calculation to determine device interface acceptability. He went on to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
state:

    It is critical that methods to quickly estimate compliance 
exist, and those methods be recommended and used early in design. 
Often they do not need to be perfect as many of the interface 
functions proposed have task times of 30 or 40 s, far in excess of 
any limit, be it 15 s, 10 s, or 8s. It is a waste of resources to 
test them if one can be confident they will not pass a guideline 
test. * * * Keep in mind that contemporary engineering practice is 
based on calculation and estimation, and tests of mockups are only 
used as a final check where there is uncertainty.
    Given the need for a calculation method, the requirements of PL 
104-113, and the research support for it, DOT should include SAE 
J2365 in its guidelines. Furthermore, given NHTSA's acceptance of 
occlusion as a test procedure, NHTSA should adopt Pettitt's method, 
which estimates occlusion task time, as an acceptable calculation 
procedure as well.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ Comments received from Dr. Paul Green, p.4. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA greatly appreciates the thoughtful comments received 
regarding the acceptance test protocols that NHTSA will use to assess 
conformance with these Guidelines. Following careful consideration of 
comments received, NHTSA has decided to maintain our plan to assess 
non-driving task conformance with acceptance criteria using the two 
preferred acceptance test protocols noted in the Initial Notice:
     Option EGDS: Eye Glance Testing Using a Driving Simulator, 
and
     Option OCC: Occlusion Testing.
    NHTSA reiterates that while these acceptance test protocols are the 
ones we intend to use to assess task conformance with these Guidelines; 
other organizations are free to use alternative protocols that they 
deem suitable for assessing tasks' ability to meet the acceptance 
criteria.
    A detailed explanation of our reasons for limiting the acceptance 
protocols to the two noted ones follows.
    NHTSA's testing experience with Option EGDS: Eye Glance Testing 
Using

[[Page 24858]]

a Driving Simulator,\154\ and Option OCC: Occlusion Testing \155\ has 
been positive. Both test protocols were practicable, straightforward to 
run, and produced robust, sensitive, and repeatable data. Although some 
commenters questioned whether eye glance metrics were sufficient to 
ensure safe driving, NHTSA believes that the underlying theme of both 
of these acceptance test protocols--keeping the driver's eyes on the 
forward road scene as much as possible--is good for motor vehicle 
safety. A clear relationship between eye glance-related metrics and 
driving safety exists--a driver's vigilant monitoring of the road and 
nearby vehicles is essential to safe driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ Some of NHTSA's experience using the Option EGDS: Eye 
Glance Testing Using a Driving Simulator test protocol is documented 
in Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Parmer, E., Martin, J., and 
Mazzae, E. N., ``Distraction Effects of Manual Number and Text Entry 
While Driving,'' DOT HS 811 510, August 2011.
    \155\ NHTSA's experience using the Option OCC: Occlusion Testing 
test protocol is documented in Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Smith, 
L.A., Martin, J., and Mazzae, E. N., ``Driver Behavior During 
Visual-Manual Secondary Task Performance: Occlusion Method Versus 
Simulated Driving,'' DOT HS number not yet available, April 2012, 
accessible at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 0077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, as was stated in the Initial Notice, both of these eye 
glance-related test protocols have a number of advantages. These 
include:
     Based on analyses of past naturalistic data, we know that 
looking away from the forward roadway for up to 2.0 seconds has a 
minimal effect on the risk of a crash or near-crash event occurring. 
However, eyes-off-road times greater than 2.0 seconds have been shown 
to increase risk at a statistically significant level. The risk of a 
crash or near-crash event increases rapidly as eyes-off-road time 
increases above 2.0 seconds.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An obvious relationship between visual-manual distraction 
and eye glance measures exists. Visual-manual distraction strongly 
implies that the driver is looking away from the forward road scene.
     Eyes-off-road time is measureable. Researchers have been 
working for more than 30 years to develop better techniques for 
measuring driver eyes-off-road times. A large amount of effort has 
focused on such topics as the best ways to ensure coding reliability 
when reducing eye glance video and the development of automated eye 
trackers.
     Commercially available occlusion goggles allow occlusion 
testing to be performed without having to develop new hardware.
     ISO standards exist for both eye glance measurement (ISO 
15007-1 and ISO 15007-2) and occlusion testing (ISO 16673). This allows 
us to take advantage of years of test development effort by the 
research community.
    In summary, proven, robust acceptance test protocols for measuring 
visual-manual distraction based on eye glance metrics and acceptance 
criteria are available. While these eye glance-based acceptance test 
protocols may not be perfect, their widespread adoption would be a 
major step towards limiting and reducing visual-manual distraction. 
Therefore, NHTSA believes that acceptance test protocols based on eye 
glance metrics are most appropriate at this time for assessment of 
distraction due to visual-manual tasks. However, NHTSA remains open to 
amending the Guidelines test protocols in the future in response to new 
information.
    Professor Young recommended the inclusion of a peripheral detection 
task (PDT; more generically a detection-response task or DRT) as part 
of the task acceptance test protocols necessary to address the 
attentional dimension as it relates to a driver's detection and 
response to on-road events. He did not advocate for the replacement of 
NHTSA's preferred task acceptance test options (Option EGDS: Eye Glance 
Testing Using a Driving Simulator and Option OCC: Occlusion Testing) 
with a PDT-based test but recommended supplementing these options with 
the addition of a PDT-based test.
    NHTSA believes that inclusion of a DRT/PDT-based test would be 
premature at this time. To date, there has been some lack of consensus 
amongst researchers (U.S. and foreign) regarding the meaning, 
appropriate use, and preferred implementation type of the DRT/PDT. 
However, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has 
made significant progress in this area and is currently nearing 
consensus on a draft standard outlining the use of a detection-response 
task for assessing selective attention in driving. We believe that this 
draft standard will greatly inform our consideration of incorporating a 
DRT as part of an acceptance test protocol for the NHTSA Guidelines in 
the future, though additional research would be required to develop 
appropriate criteria for task acceptance.
    Several commenters advocated for inclusion of acceptance test 
protocols based on driving performance measures (e.g., lane exceedances 
and headway variability). The Initial Notice contained two of these 
protocols, both of which were based on the Alliance 2.1 Alternative B 
test protocol, (referred to in the Initial Notice as Option DS-BM: 
Driving Test Protocol with Benchmark and Option DS-FC: Driving Test 
Protocol with Fixed Acceptance Criteria).
    NHTSA is not including this protocol in the Phase 1 Guidelines 
because the performance measures evaluated by these protocols to assess 
visual-manual distraction (i.e., lane exceedances and headway 
variability) do not have an established link to crash risk, whereas the 
visual attention-based measures selected by NHTSA do have an 
established link to crash risk. Additionally, although the Alliance 2.1 
Alternative B test protocol produces results similar to the EGDS 
protocol, the Alliance 2.1 Alternative B test protocol is more complex 
and requires a larger number of participants.
    Specifically, the benchmark task requirement in the Alliance 2.1 
Alternative B test protocol adds considerable complexity (i.e., 
development of benchmark task for each test, additional test trials). 
In contrast, the EGDS and OCC protocols use fixed task acceptance 
criteria that do not require the use of a benchmark task, resulting in 
fewer test trials that need to be run to assess a vehicle's 
conformance. Additionally, although NHTSA's research using the Alliance 
2.1 Alternative B test protocol \157\ found that this test protocol 
produced essentially the same results as did the EGDS protocol, more 
test participants were required for the results to attain adequate 
statistical power than were needed for the EGDS protocol (24 test 
participants is adequate for EGDS protocol). NHTSA's research showed 
that 60 or more test participants needed to be tested to obtain similar 
statistical power using the Alliance 2.1 Alternative B test protocol. 
One of the reasons for the need for a larger sample size when using the 
Alliance 2.1 Alternative B test protocol is its use of lane exceedances 
as a measure of driving performance. Lane exceedances are low frequency 
events, particularly during straight line driving, and secondary tasks 
can be performed with no lane exceedances. Conversely, lane exceedances 
may happen when the driver is not performing a secondary task. The 
relative rarity of lane exceedances means that a large amount of 
testing has

[[Page 24859]]

to be performed to observe a statistically stable number of these 
events. Therefore, an additional reason why NHTSA did not retain either 
of the Alliance 2.1 Alternative B test protocol-based acceptance test 
options in these Guidelines is because eye glance based acceptance test 
protocols provide statistically significant results with the fewest 
number of test participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Parmer, E., Martin, J., and 
Mazzae, E. N., ``Distraction Effects of In-Vehicle Tasks Requiring 
Number and Text Entry Using Auto Alliance's Principle 2.1B 
Verification Procedure,'' DOT HS 811 571, February 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chrysler advocated for the inclusion of an acceptance test protocol 
based on the European Lane Change Test (LCT) specified in ISO 
26022:2010 \158\ that was not proposed as an option in the Initial 
Notice. This ISO standard describes a testing method that 
quantitatively measures human performance degradation on a primary 
driving-like task while a secondary task is being performed. The result 
is an estimate of secondary task demand. While not proposed, NHTSA had 
performed limited research on the diagnostic properties of the LCT 
method during 2006.\159\ Twenty-six participants, aged 25 to 50 years, 
performed the LCT in a driving simulator while performing selected 
secondary tasks. Results from this testing found that the LCT's metrics 
were sensitive to differences between secondary tasks. However, the 
data were insufficient to suggest whether the Lane Change Test approach 
was superior, or equivalent, to NHTSA's selected test approaches. 
Additionally, as stated throughout the notice, NHTSA's strategy for the 
Phase 1 Guidelines for visual-manual distraction has been to focus on 
test methods that measure visual attention and eye glances rather than 
driving performance because the strongest crash risk data is associated 
with visual attention. Therefore, NHTSA is not including in the 
Guidelines an LCT-based acceptance test at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ ISO 26022, ``Road vehicles--Ergonomic aspects of transport 
information and control systems--Simulated lane change test to 
assess in-vehicle demand,'' issued September 2010.
    \159\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dr. Green commented that he thought the NHTSA Guidelines acceptance 
test protocols should emphasize prediction and calculation to estimate 
which tasks would meet the acceptance criteria prior to the completion 
of device interface design (for example, by the use of SAE J2365). 
While NHTSA supports designers using such tools early in the design 
process, this is not NHTSA's focus. NHTSA generally tests vehicles and 
equipment (including electronic devices) after they have been fully 
designed, placed into production, and are being sold to the general 
public. Pre-production vehicles or systems are generally not available 
for testing by NHTSA. It is up to individual companies, industry 
organizations, or human factors organizations to develop appropriate 
prediction and calculation methods and to develop appropriate tools to 
assist device designers who design devices that conform to the NHTSA 
Guidelines.
2. Concerns About the Use of Radio Tuning as Reference Task
a. Summary of Comments
    The NHTSA Guidelines propose using manual radio tuning as a 
benchmark task to represent a level of distraction considered 
reasonable for a driver to experience while driving. Several comments 
were critical of the proposed benchmark task.
    The Alliance and multiple vehicle manufacturers provided comments 
in support of their recommendation to retain the use of the older 
radio-tuning task that was defined in the Alliance Guidelines. Their 
position is summarized in the following excerpts from the Alliance 
comments:

    The point of selecting a 1980s radio-tuning task as a 
``socially-acceptable'' benchmark task was to prescribe a common, 
routine task that had remained more-or-less constant for many 
decades prior to the ``digital age.'' Tuning an analog radio 
requires a user to manually adjust to a particular frequency, based 
on sound quality feedback. In contrast, modern digital radios 
``auto-tune'' to each successive radio station frequency with each 
activation of the tuning control (usually a push-button 
control).\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Comments received from the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, Technical Appendix, p. 16. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance therefore recommends that the benchmark radio 
tuning task be specified as it is in the Alliance DFT guidelines, 
namely as an analog radio tuning task using a circa-1980s 
radio.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ Ibid.

    The implications of the differences between using newer versus 
older radios to establish benchmark levels according to the Alliance is 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
revealed in the following Alliance comments:

    * * * manual tuning of an older analog style radio requires more 
manual and visual effort than does tuning newer digital radios.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * * * the use of contemporary radios to conduct the benchmarking 
studies calls into question the validity of the data, both in the 
case of the two studies conducted by NHTSA and VTTI used to derive 
the more stringent visual dwell criteria (12 seconds TEORT or 9 
seconds TSOT), and in the case of using radio tuning as a benchmark 
task for determining acceptability of a task under test. In the 
former case, at least some of the difference found by NHTSA and VTTI 
between the Alliance's visual dwell criteria of 20 seconds TGT or 15 
second TSOT and NHTSA's lower equivalent values is attributable to 
the use of newer radios that are easier to tune.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ Ibid, p. 19.

    The Alliance offered to work with NHTSA to improve the Alliance 
Guidelines' specifications of the 1980s-era radio or to develop a 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
different standardized test apparatus:

    We note that NHTSA does not take issue with the use of a circa-
1980s radio, but rather with the lack of sufficient specificity 
provided in the description of the test apparatus provided in the 
Alliance guidelines. * * * This is a concern that could be easily 
addressed by developing a standardized test apparatus representative 
of a circa-1980s analog radio and specifying its use.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ Comments received from the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, Technical Appendix, p. 19. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0104.

    Referring to the way in which data from a number of vehicles with 
different radios was used by NHTSA to establish benchmark parameter 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
values; Professor Young offered the following comments:

    The wide range of different types of interfaces used in the 
radios tested by NHTSA compound the problem of coming up with a 
benchmark value for radio tuning.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ Ibid.

    Professor Richard A. Young suggested that the use of radio tuning 
as a benchmark task is inappropriate because ``radio tuning variability 
[is] too high.'' \166\ Professor Young also pointed out that the 
associated distributions of eye glance durations during manual radio 
tuning contain some glances longer than 2.0 seconds in duration. 
According to him, glances longer than 2.0 seconds have recently been 
identified in several new analyses of 100-Car naturalistic data as 
having higher risk ratios than the eyes-off-road time metric 
traditionally used to compute risk ratios. The essence of the problem 
perceived by Professor Young is revealed in the following comments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ Ibid, Attachment 4, p. 12.

    * * * the radio tuning reference task * * * has a long single 
glance duration * * * , which may contribute to crash 
causation.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ Ibid, p 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * * * the long maximum single glance that tends to be associated 
with radio tuning at least some of the time in some subjects * * * 
may not be ``benign'' for event detection and response.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ Ibid, p. 8.


[[Page 24860]]


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

    The implication of the recent findings is suggested in the 
following comment from Professor Young:

    * * * when the radio tuning task was selected for use as a 
reference task by the Alliance, it was before the finding that there 
is an attentional element to driver performance for visual-manual 
tasks that goes beyond what is reflected in eyes-off-road time or 
mean single glance duration metrics.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ Comments received from Richard A. Young, Attachment 2, p. 
13. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, 
Document Number 0106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tests using a radio benchmark (DS-BM, DFD-BM) should be removed 
from the list of recommended tests because the radio tuning 
reference task is associated with poor attentional processes (poor 
event detection and long maximum single glance).\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ Ibid, Attachment 2, p. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA carefully reviewed comments critical of NHTSA's proposal to 
use manual radio tuning as a benchmark for acceptance testing. Comments 
focused on the choice of radio tuning as a benchmark task as well as 
the vehicles used in research performed by NHTSA to develop eye glance 
criteria associated with the proposed manual radio tuning benchmark 
task.
    As discussed in the Initial Notice, NHTSA's decision to use the 
radio tuning benchmark task to determine an acceptable TEORT threshold 
is based upon the fundamental idea that secondary tasks should not be 
performed while driving if they are more distracting than performing a 
reference task, specifically radio tuning. NHTSA took this concept from 
the Alliance Guidelines. The following excerpt from the Alliance 
Guidelines explains their justification for using manual radio tuning 
as the reference task:

    The criteria for alternative A [basing task acceptability for 
performance while driving upon eye glance metrics] are defined by 
means of a ``reference task'' approach to acceptability. In this 
approach, reference tasks that reflect typical in-vehicle device 
interactions or current practice are used as a benchmark. In 
particular, the 85th percentile of driving performance effects 
associated with manually tuning a radio is chosen as a first key 
criterion. This is because manual radio tuning has a long history in 
the research literature and its impacts on driver eye glance 
behavior, vehicle control, and object-and-event detection are 
reasonably well understood. More specifically, radio tuning:
     is a distraction source that exists in the crash record 
(see Stutts, et al, 2001; Wang, Knipling, and Goodman, 1999; 
Wierwille and Tijerina, 1998) and so has established safety-
relevance (see Table 1);
     is a typical in-vehicle device interaction; and
     represents the high end of conventional in-vehicle 
systems in terms of technological complexity as well as in terms of 
impacts on driver performance;
     it represents a plausible benchmark of driver 
distraction potential beyond which new systems, functions, and 
features should not go;
     the radio is a device that is most likely to be 
supplanted or augmented by new technology in terms of functions and 
services. News, weather, traffic advisories, entertainment (music, 
stories), and advertisements currently broadcast in audio to the 
general public via the radio will be tailored to the individual 
driver's needs and interests by emerging technology.
     the 85th percentile response characteristics or 
capability represent a common design standard in traffic 
engineering.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, ``Statement of 
Principles, Criteria and Verification Procedures on Driver-
Interactions With Advanced In-Vehicle Information and Communication 
Systems,'' p. 40, June 26, 2006 version, Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, Washington, DC.

    NHTSA agrees with this approach to establishing a recommended 
threshold for total eyes off road time to complete a task. NHTSA also 
adopted the Alliance's technique of using the 85th percentile of driver 
eye glance measures while performing manual radio tuning as a way to 
set acceptance criteria for testing to determine if a task is 
unreasonably distracting. In addition to the 85th percentile being a 
common design standard in traffic engineering, use of the 85th 
percentile ensures that a task can be performed with acceptable levels 
of distraction by the vast majority of drivers.
    As explained in NHTSA's Initial Notice and subsequent technical 
correction,\172\ to obtain data about driver performance during manual 
radio tuning, NHTSA performed two studies, one with testing performed 
by NHTSA \173\ and one with testing performed by VTTI.\174\ The first 
study tested 90 test participants performing 541 instances of manual 
radio tuning in a 2010 Toyota Prius (trim level V) connected to VRTC's 
fixed-base driving simulator. Each test participant was instructed to 
follow a lead vehicle moving at a varying rate of speed and to perform 
the manual radio tuning reference task when prompted. Data from the 
first trial for each participant were analyzed separately because the 
first trial was typically associated with the longest TEORT. The 85th 
percentile total eyes-off-road time (TEORT) based on the first radio 
tuning trial by each test participant was 11.97 seconds. The 85th 
percentile TEORT value for all radio tuning trials was 11.10 seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ 77 FR 11227-11229; U.S. DOT/NHTSA--Technical Correction to 
77 FR 11200, February 24, 2012, Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver 
Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices, Notice of 
Proposed Federal Guidelines, posted 05/09/2012, accessible at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0079.
    \173\ Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Parmer, E., Martin, J., and 
Mazzae, E.N., ``Distraction Effects of Number and Text Entry Using 
the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers' Principle 2.1B 
Verification Procedure,'' NHTSA Technical Report number DOT HS 811 
571, November 2011.
    \174\ Garrott, W.R., Perez, M., Baldwin, G.H.S, Ranney, T.A., 
Mazzae, E.N., Owens, J., Viita, D., Angell, L., Parmer, E., and 
Martin, J., ``Summary of Radio Tuning Effects on Visual and Driving 
Performance Measures--Simulator and Test Track Studies,'' Docket 
NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 0076, April 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second study had two testing phases. During Phase I, test 
participants drove each of four vehicles on the VTTI Smart Road while 
following a lead vehicle traveling at a constant speed of 45 mph, 
similar to the driving scenario used in the NHTSA driving simulator 
study discussed above. During Phase II, test participants drove each of 
two vehicles on the VTTI Smart Road while following a lead vehicle 
traveling during one lap at a constant speed of 45 mph and during 
another lap at a variable speed. A total of 43 participants between the 
ages of 45 and 65 took part in this study. This participant sample was 
composed of two separate participant groups, as data collection 
occurred in two phases as noted above. Data for a total of 218 manual 
radio tuning trials were obtained and analyzed. The 85th percentile 
TEORT for all of the VTTI radio tuning data was 12.1 seconds.
    Based on the 85th percentile TEORT values from the two studies, 
NHTSA proposed, and is now adopting, a TEORT acceptance threshold of 12 
seconds.
    Regarding comments suggesting that NHTSA did not use the Alliance 
Guidelines' manual radio tuning task when the agency conducted its own 
research, NHTSA believes that we used the Alliance-specified task. 
Multiple reasons support this position, as explained below.
    First, consider the actual radio tuning apparatus. The Alliance 
Guidelines contain a description of the apparatus to be used for manual 
radio tuning including minimum specifications for the radio's controls, 
display, and positioning in the vehicle.\175\ They clearly indicate 
that either a simulated radio or an actual production radio may be 
used. The apparatus specifications conclude with the statement ``If a 
real radio is used, it should provide a reasonable approximation to 
these

[[Page 24861]]

features.'' \176\ This statement appears to indicate that the authors 
of the Alliance Guidelines do not anticipate that the precise details 
of the radio tested should have a substantial effect on test results. 
As summarized in the Initial Notice, NHTSA's 2/12 criteria was 
developed in part based on research performed using five different 
vehicles and their original-equipment, production radios that met the 
apparatus specifications contained in the Alliance Guidelines. These 
vehicles included:

    \175\ Ibid, pp. 46-49.
    \176\ Ibid, p. 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2005 Mercedes Benz R350
 2006 Cadillac STS with premium infotainment system
 2006 Infiniti M35
 2010 Chevrolet Impala
 2010 Toyota Prius with premium infotainment system

    Second, commenters expressed concerns that the manual radio tuning 
task used by NHTSA to obtain the data that formed the basis of the 
proposed eye glance criteria differs from the manual radio tuning task 
used as a reference task in the Alliance Guidelines. For the NHTSA 
radio tuning testing, each of these five vehicles' radios was tested 
using the Alliance Guidelines' procedure for manual radio tuning with 
no deviations.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ Ibid, pp. 47-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, commenters suggested that radio designs might have changed 
so as to make radio tuning using 2005 through 2010 model radios less 
distracting than it had been using 1980s radios. They further suggested 
that this accounted for the difference between the Alliance Guideline's 
task acceptance criteria of 2 seconds maximum single eye glance 
length--20 seconds maximum TEORT for a single task (referred to as the 
2/20 criteria) and the NHTSA Guideline's 2/12 criteria. NHTSA does not 
believe that the selection of more modern radios is responsible for the 
difference between the Alliance and NHTSA acceptance criteria. This is 
shown by the similarities between the Dingus/Rockwell data (used as the 
basis for the Alliance Guidelines criteria) which was collected during 
the 1980's and the more recently-collected NHTSA data.
    The Alliance 2.1 Alternative A test protocol determines task 
acceptability for performance while driving based on the 2/20 eye 
glance metric criteria. The Alliance 2.1 Alternative A test protocol's 
acceptance criteria were developed in earlier Alliance research 
involving the performance of the manual radio tuning reference task. 
Actual performance of the manual radio tuning task (as opposed to use 
of related criteria) described in the Alliance Guidelines technically 
applies only to Alliance 2.1 Alternative B testing (which examines 
vehicle-control-related driving performance metrics). NHTSA used the 
manual radio tuning task specified by the Alliance Guidelines to 
collect the data that led to NHTSA's 2/12 eye glance metric criteria. 
The Alliance intended their 2/20 task acceptance criteria to be 85th 
percentile values for single glance duration to the radio and TGT, 
respectively, for performance of the manual radio tuning reference 
task. They developed estimates of these 85th percentile values by 
analyzing data collected during two 1980s driving studies involving 
manual radio tuning: A 1987 study performed by Dingus \178\ and a 1988 
study performed by Rockwell.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ Dingus, T.A., Attentional Demand Evaluation for an 
Automobile Moving-Map Navigation System, unpublished doctoral 
dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 
Blacksburg, VA, 1987.
    \179\ Rockwell, T.H., ``Spare Visual Capacity in Driving 
Revisited: New Empirical Results for an Old Idea,'' in A. G. Gale et 
al (editors), Vision in Vehicles II (pp. 317-324), Amsterdam: 
Elsevier, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The discrepancy between NHTSA's Total Eyes Off Road Time (TEORT) 
and the Total Glance Time (TGT) used in the Alliance Guidelines (i.e., 
12.0 seconds vs. 20.0 seconds) is rooted in how each group derived its 
respective value. NHTSA's research determined 85th percentile TEORT by 
directly measuring participant visual attention to the road ahead, 
which allowed direct calculation of TEORT. In contrast, the Alliance 
used data from studies that did not directly measure TEORT or TGT, and, 
therefore, it relied on a calculated estimate of TGT determined by 
multiplying the 85th percentile individual glance duration and the 85th 
percentile number of glances. Upon examining the differences between 
NHTSA's TEORT (12.0 seconds) and the Alliance's TGT (20.0 seconds), 
NHTSA identified a flaw in how the Alliance calculated its estimated 
TGT. This flaw is discussed in detail below. Basically, multiplying the 
85th percentile glance duration by the 85th percentile number of 
glances overestimates TGT for three reasons. First, these two values 
are not independent. Multiplying non-independent numbers is 
inappropriate because the resulting value is confounded. For example, 
it is plausible that drivers who used longer eye glances during radio 
tuning took fewer glances. Second, statistically, to estimate the 85th 
percentile of a product of two numbers, the 50th percentile of one 
value times the 85th percentile of the other value should be used 
(multiplying the two 85th percentiles together yields an estimate of 
the 97.75th percentile). Third, manual radio tuning requires multiple 
eye glances. From the NHTSA data, the 85th percentile number of eye 
glances was 17. The probability of 17 glances all being above the 85th 
percentile duration is infinitesimal. When NHTSA adjusted for these 
flaws, the results closely matched NHTSA's 12.0 second TEORT value. 
NHTSA believes the outcomes of its own research and the corrected 
calculations of the Alliance's numbers are converging evidence that the 
12.0 second TEORT value has a strong empirical basis.
    As noted above, the Dingus and Rockwell data used by the Alliance 
did not allow direct computation of TGT. Rather, the Alliance used an 
aggregate distribution of radio tuning glance durations from Rockwell 
to determine the 85th percentile glance duration (1.9 seconds per 
glance which was rounded up to 2.0 seconds per glance). The mean and 
standard deviation of the number of driver eye glances to the radio 
during the task were obtained from the Dingus study and were used to 
create estimates of the 85th percentile number of glances required for 
manual radio tuning (9.4 glances which was rounded up to 10.0 glances). 
These two values were multiplied together resulting in the 20-second 
TGT criterion contained in the Alliance Guidelines.
    NHTSA reviewed the Alliance's analyses and has found what we 
believe are statistical problems that led to the Alliance's 20-second 
TGT criterion.\180\ Three specific problems with the analysis are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Smith, L.A., Martin, J. & 
Mazzae, E.N. Driver Behavior During Visual-Manual Secondary Task 
Performance: Occlusion Method Versus Simulated Driving, Appendix A. 
Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 0077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the 85th percentile length for one glance is 2.0 
seconds, then the 85th percentile length for ten glances is not 20.0 
seconds but instead less than 20.0 seconds.
     The 85th percentile length for one glance cannot be 
multiplied by the 85th percentile number of glances to obtain an 85th 
percentile TGT.
     Eye glance lengths and number of eye glances are not 
statistically independent. It is entirely plausible that drivers who 
used longer eye glances during radio tuning took fewer glances.
    The logic above denotes how multiplying the non-independent 85th 
percentile glance duration by the 85th percentile number of glances 
results in

[[Page 24862]]

an overestimate of TGT. This is the flaw in the Alliance's calculations 
identified by NHTSA. While it is not possible to calculate a precisely 
correct 85th percentile TEORT with the information in these studies 
because eye glance durations and number of eye glances are not 
statistically independent, NHTSA analyzed the Dingus and Rockwell data 
to approximate their 85th percentile TGT in an effort to correct for 
the flaw in the Alliance's analysis. The 85th percentile TGT can be 
estimated in a variety of ways.
    1. Multiply the mean glance duration determined in the Dingus study 
(1.10 seconds per glance) times the 85th percentile number of glances 
for radio tuning from the Dingus study (9.4 glances). This yields an 
estimated 85th percentile TGT of 10.34 seconds.
    2. Multiply the mean glance duration determined in the Rockwell 
study (1.44 seconds per glance) by the 85th percentile number of 
glances from the Dingus study (9.4 glances). This yields an estimated 
85th percentile TGT of 13.54 seconds.
    3. Multiply the 85th percentile glance duration determined in the 
Rockwell study (1.90 seconds per glance) by the mean number of glances 
from the Dingus study (6.9 glances). This gives an estimated 85th 
percentile TGT of 13.11 seconds.
    Unfortunately, information is not available to permit calculation 
of a fourth estimate, that given by the 85th percentile glance duration 
determined in the Dingus study times the mean number of glances for 
radio tuning from the Dingus study.
    It is impossible to know which of these three estimated 85th 
percentile TGT values provides the best estimate. A reasonable way to 
proceed is to average the three values which gives NHTSA's best 
estimate of the 85th percentile TEORT from the Dingus and Rockwell data 
of 12.33 seconds.
    Rounding NHTSA's best estimate of the 85th percentile TGT from the 
Dingus and Rockwell data of 12.33 seconds to the nearest 1.5 seconds 
gives a TGT acceptance criterion of 12 seconds. This is identical to 
the maximum TEORT acceptance criterion of 12 seconds that NHTSA 
developed based on manual radio tuning data from its own research, 
which measured TEORT directly and therefore avoided the problem of 
multiplying non-independent glance duration and number. (Rounding to 
the nearest 1.5-second increment in the TEORT value provides 
compatibility with occlusion testing, since for a TSOT to TEORT ratio 
of 1:1, each 1.5-second unoccluded period corresponds to 1.5 seconds of 
driving simulator eyes-off-road time.)
    Even if the rounded 85th percentile TEORT value from the Dingus and 
Rockwell data was not identical to the rounded 85th percentile TEORT 
value from recent NHTSA testing, NHTSA would still be inclined to base 
its guidance on more recent data. The recent NHTSA testing had the 
following advantages:
     More vehicles/radios tested,
     More test participants involved,
     More modern radio designs evaluated, and
     It better allows for recent improvements in driver skills 
due to more frequent driver usage of electronic devices.
    Based on the above discussion, NHTSA believes the specified manual 
radio tuning task and related acceptance criteria proposed in the NHTSA 
Guidelines are reasonable and valid. We believe that the difference 
between the Alliance Guideline's 2/20 task acceptance criteria and the 
NHTSA Guideline's 2/12 criteria is solely due to a statistical error 
made during development of the Alliance Guideline's 2/20 criteria. 
While we appreciate the Alliance's offer to work with NHTSA to improve 
the Alliance Guidelines' specifications of the 1980s-era radio or to 
develop a different standardized test apparatus, we think that such an 
effort is unnecessary because we are already using the exact same 
apparatus and procedure.
    NHTSA disagrees with the comment that radio tuning is inappropriate 
for use as a benchmark task because it is too variable and its 
associated distributions of eye glance durations contain some glances 
longer than 2.0 seconds in duration. As stated in the Initial Notice, 
NHTSA wanted a reference task with a long history of being societally 
acceptable for drivers to perform while driving. While it is true that 
manual radio tuning has vehicle-to-vehicle variability, this is why we 
tested five vehicles' radios to determine our task acceptance criteria. 
We have also included task acceptance criteria specifically aimed at 
preventing too many long eye glances from being made during any 
acceptable task (our criteria that, for 21 out of 24 test participants, 
the mean eye glance duration must be less than or equal to 2.0 seconds 
long plus 85 percent of eye glances must be less than or equal to 2.0 
seconds long).
3. NHTSA Has Not Shown That Tasks With TEORT Values Longer Than 12 
Seconds are Less Safe
a. Summary of Comments
    Manufacturers were consistently opposed to the adoption of the 
proposed 12-second Total Eyes-Off-Road Time (TEORT) criterion value, 
which is more stringent than the value contained in the Alliance 
Guidelines. Manufacturers provided several different reasons to support 
their position.
    One set of arguments asserted that NHTSA should demonstrate a 
safety need and/or benefit to justify the stricter criterion. The 
following comment was submitted by Toyota:

    Toyota believes NHTSA should continue its practice of 
demonstrating a defined safety benefit to new regulations and 
guidelines. There needs to be evidence of a safety benefit with the 
change from the current Alliance guideline criterion of 20 seconds 
to the NHTSA proposal of 12 seconds. Proposing a 40% reduction in 
the criterion does not seem to be appropriate and should wait until 
more empirical evidence of a benefit is ascertained, possibly 
through naturalistic driving studies.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ Comments received from Toyota Motor North America, Inc. 
Attachment, p. 6. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0092.

    Ford encouraged NHTSA to use naturalistic data to support any such 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
proposed change:

    Ford firmly believes all guidelines must be based on the most 
complete and current data, with special emphasis on real-world crash 
data and naturalistic driving studies. We find that neither the 
crash problem size potentially attributable to integrated in-vehicle 
systems nor the latest naturalistic driving data support the 
stringency levels contained in the proposed NHTSA guidelines, 
particularly the reduction in the total-eyes-off-road time (and 
associated occlusion metric) that a permitted task can require.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ Comments received from Ford Motor Company, Technical 
Appendix, p. 13. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-
0053, Document Number 0097.

    Volkswagen noted a lack of customer complaint data supporting the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
need for a more stringent criterion:

    Current crash and customer complaint data do not support the 
need for expanding the scope and stringency of the existing 
voluntary industry distraction guidelines [commonly referred to as 
the Alliance Driver Focus-Telematics (DFT) Guidelines] for in-
vehicle telematics systems with visual-manual interfaces, such as 
proposed by NHTSA in the subject draft guidelines.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ Comments received from Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., 
Attachment, p. 1. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0101.

    A second set of reasons for opposing the adoption of the proposed 
12-second

[[Page 24863]]

TEORT criterion value was based on not understanding how the 12-second 
value was determined. For example, the following comments were received 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Toyota Motor North America, Inc.:

    Due to the lack of supporting data or detailed reports, we are 
uncertain how the 12-second value was calculated.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ Comments received from Toyota Motor North America, Inc. 
Attachment, pp. 6-7. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0092.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General Motors made the same argument in the following comment:

    The rationale for reducing the 20 second limit to 12 seconds is 
unclear and appears to be relatively unsupported.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ Comments received from General Motors LLC, Attachment, p. 
2. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 0103.

    A third set of arguments questioned the nature of the relationship 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
between TEORT and poor driving/crash risk. Dr. Paul Green commented:

    Given the relationship is unstated; one could assume it is 
linear. However, some early research by Wierwille and the research 
of Godthelp concerning TLC and occlusion leads one to a power 
function, with the power being greater than 1. There is a need for 
more and more compelling evidence to support the maximum time off 
the road and the effect of single long glances.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ Comments received from Dr. Paul Green, p. 6. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0052.

    Another reason given repeatedly to support the recommendation to 
abandon the adoption of a more stringent TEORT criterion value is based 
on the results of two recent studies that reanalyzed video data from 
the 100-car naturalistic study. In the following comment, the Alliance 
argues that the assertions on which NHTSA based the new criterion 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
values may no longer be valid:

    In contradiction of NHTSA's statement, two very recent and 
independently conducted in-depth analyses of the 100-Car 
naturalistic driving data suggest that it is the last single glance 
that is significantly associated with increased odds of crash and 
near-crash involvement (Liang, 2009; Victor and Dozza, 2011). 
Reasonable arguments can be mustered to explain both why TEORT 
should not matter and why it must matter. Because of the ambiguous 
nature of these findings, further understanding of the interaction 
of eye glance and crash causation based on real-world results is 
needed. Analysis of the SHRP 2 naturalistic driving data will 
provide an opportunity to develop this better understanding before 
more stringent criteria are imposed.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ Comments received from Alliance, Technical Appendix, p. 
13. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, 
Document Number 0104.

    Some commenters suggested elimination of the TEORT criterion 
entirely, but most recommended that NHTSA adopt the Alliance criterion 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
value of 20 seconds. This comment came from Ford Motor Company:

    Accordingly, we recommend that NHTSA adopt the 20 second total 
eyes off road time, and the corresponding 15 second total shutter 
open time criteria from the Alliance Guidelines, rather than the 12 
and 9 seconds values proposed in the notice.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ Comments received from Ford Motor Company, p. 2. Accessed 
at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 
0097.

    Several commenters questioned NHTSA's proposed use of the 85th 
percentile radio tuning TEORT for setting the proposed TEORT criterion 
value. The Alliance made the following comment about using the 85th 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
percentile as a criterion value.

    The `consolidated' 85th percentile of 11.3 [seconds] is a 
consequence of the mixing of arbitrary sample sizes and arbitrarily 
selected vehicles. Table 5 presented data from N = 90 participants 
in a fixed-base driving simulator working with a Toyota Prius radio. 
Table 7 presented data taken from closed course testing of radio 
tuning in 9 different passenger cars with samples ranging in size 
from 20 to 41. The data as aggregated appear to be an arbitrary 
mixture of trials rather than a representative sample. For example, 
if only the vehicle that had an 85th percentile of 8.1 s had been 
used, then 8.1 s would appear to be the `correct' value. On the 
other hand if only the vehicle that had an 85th percentile value of 
17.6 s had been used, then 17.6 s would appear to be the `correct' 
value. Other vehicles and participant samples not tested might 
produce results even more extreme than either of these two vehicles 
produced. Thus, a `consolidated' 85th percentile value could be made 
to turn out arbitrarily higher or lower simply by changing the 
mixture. No rationale is provided as to how the varying sample 
sizes, vehicles, and venues chosen comprise a representative sample 
of the United States motor vehicle population.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ Comments received from the Alliance, Technical Appendix, 
p. 14. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, 
Document Number 0104.

    Most importantly, NHTSA provides no evidence that vehicles with 
longer 85th percentile TEORT values are less safe than those 
vehicles with shorter 85th percentile values, specifically with 
regard to crashes uniquely attributable to radio tuning or other, 
similar visual-manual tasks.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ Ibid. p. 14.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Green made the following comment:

    * * * the [guidelines] section focuses on the use of the 85th 
[percentile] as a criteria [sic] because it is used as a criteria 
for setting speed thresholds. How does that make it an acceptable 
criterion here? Why is 85th [percentile] used for speed? \191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ Comments received from Dr. Paul Green, p. 6. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0052.

    One commenter expressed concern that the 12-second TEORT criterion 
was too long. The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
provided the following comment:

    * * * the agency's recommendation that tasks be accessible while 
driving if they can be performed with 12.0 seconds of ``total eyes-
off-road time'' is too long and will allow features that require too 
great a diversion of attention from the driving task. A test 
procedure limit of up to 12.0 seconds permits too many repeated eye 
glances away from the road and traffic.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ Comments received from the Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety, p. 4. Accessed at Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 
0069.

    Advocates refers to the 8.0 second limit adopted by the Japan 
Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA) Guidelines \193\ in the 
following comment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association, ``Guideline 
for In-Vehicle Display Systems, Version 3.0,'' Japanese Automobile 
Manufacturers Association, Tokyo, Japan, August 2004.

    Advocates believes that JAMA is taking a more prudent approach 
to safety by limiting the complexity of built-in electronics that 
can be accessed by drivers while operating a motor vehicle. For 
these reasons, Advocates opposes the proposed NHTSA guidelines to 
the extent that they would allow non-safety electronic devices and 
applications that require considerable glances and manipulations to 
access, select or engage while operating a motor vehicle, and we 
recommend that a limit of no more than the JAMA specification of 8.0 
seconds be adopted by the agency.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ Comments received from the Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety, p. 4. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-
0053, Document Number 0069.

b. NHTSA's Response
    For the reasons described below, NHTSA has decided to retain the 
12-second acceptance threshold for TEORT.
    NHTSA determined its 12.0-second recommended maximum value for 
TEORT based upon the fundamental idea that secondary tasks should not 
be performed while driving if they are more distracting than performing 
a reference task, specifically manual radio tuning. NHTSA took this 
concept from the Alliance Guidelines. NHTSA maintains that this is a 
fundamentally sound approach. As explained earlier in this notice, 
NHTSA contends that the difference between the Alliance Guideline's 2/
20 task acceptance criteria and the NHTSA Guideline's 2/12

[[Page 24864]]

criteria is due to a statistics error made during development of the 
Alliance Guideline's 2/20 criteria. NHTSA believes that the two sets of 
guidelines would have identical task acceptance criteria, had the 
Alliance not made this statistics error.
    The basis for NHTSA's reducing its maximum recommended TEORT for 
task acceptability while driving is fully set out in the Initial 
Notice, this notice, and in a NHTSA technical report about its radio 
tuning research.\195\ It is well supported since the recent NHTSA 
testing had the following advantages over the testing measuring the 
data used by the Alliance to establish their TEORT criterion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ Perez, M., Owens, J, Viita, D., Angell, L., Ranney, T.A., 
Baldwin, G.H.S., Parmer, E., Martin, J., Garrott, W.R., and Mazzae, 
E.N., ``Summary of Radio Tuning Effects on Visual and Driving 
Performance Measures--Simulator and Test Track Studies,'' DOT HS 
number not yet available, April 2012, accessible at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0076.

     More vehicles/radios tested,
     More test participants involved, and
     Better allows for recent improvements in driver skills due 
to more frequent driver usage of electronic devices.
    The fact that both the testing that measured the data used by the 
Alliance to establish their TEORT criterion established (when re-
analyzed) and the recent NHTSA testing established the exact same TEORT 
criterion further shows the appropriateness of the value determined.
    The vehicles tested during NHTSA's radio tuning testing were 
selected randomly. We point out that Dingus and Rockwell also used 
randomly selected vehicles for their testing, but the NHTSA study had 
advantages that were noted in the previous paragraph. None of the 
commenters presented data showing what sample of vehicles would have 
been more representative of U.S. OE radio interfaces or data indicating 
that a more representative sample would have produced a different TEORT 
value.
    NHTSA does not claim that there is a linear relationship between 
TEORT and poor driving/crash risk. Nor do we see that it matters 
whether the relationship is linear or not. NHTSA is firmly convinced 
that what does matter, and all studies indicate as valid, is that there 
is a monotonically increasing relationship between TEORT and poor 
driving/crash risk (i.e., having drivers look away from the forward 
road scene increases driving risk). Recent analyses of the 100-Car 
Study data by Victor and Dozza \196\ also found that minimizing the 
time that drivers look away from the road maximizes safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ Victor, Trent; Dozza, Marco: Timing Matters: Visual 
behaviour and crash risk in the 100-car on-line data. Proceedings of 
the Driver Distraction and Inattention International Conference, 
G[ouml]teborg, 5-7 September, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to Dr. Green's comment, NHTSA chose the 85th percentile 
for compatibility with the Alliance Guidelines and because it offers 
several advantages. We did not want to use the 100th percentile because 
that would reduce the stability of test results by making our task 
acceptance criteria highly susceptible to the effects of testing 
outliers. We could have based our task acceptance criteria upon either 
mean or median values, but use of the 85th percentile ensures that a 
task can be performed with acceptable levels of distraction by the vast 
majority of drivers. Use of the 85th percentile can also reduce the 
amount of testing needed to determine that a task is unacceptable for 
performance while driving. If testing begins with the anticipated 
``worst case'' drivers and they have problems meeting the task 
acceptance criteria, additional testing may well be superfluous.
    The Advocates' suggested that NHTSA use the 8.0-second TEORT 
criterion contained in the JAMA Guidelines rather than 12.0 seconds 
maximum TEORT contained in the NHTSA Guidelines. The JAMA Guidelines 
state that when testing to determine task acceptability:

    * * * use the average value of their operation time to judge 
compliance with the total gazing time standard. [emphasis added by 
NHTSA] \197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association, ``Guideline 
for In-Vehicle Display Systems, Version 3.0,'' p. 14, Japanese 
Automobile Manufacturers Association, Tokyo, Japan, August 2004.

    In other words, for a task to be acceptable for performance while 
driving, the JAMA Guidelines recommend that the average TEORT be less 
than or equal to 8.0 seconds while the NHTSA Guidelines recommended 
that the 85th percentile TEORT be less than or equal to 12.0 seconds. 
However, for the reasons previously stated above, NHTSA believes that 
the 85th percentile TEORT is a better threshold criterion than average 
TEORT. The difference between the mean (approximately 50th percentile 
for typical eye glance distributions) and the 85th percentile is 
responsible for much of the apparent difference between the JAMA and 
NHTSA Guidelines.
    NHTSA's manual radio tuning research with a 2010 Toyota Prius found 
an 85th percentile TEORT of 11.97 seconds and an average TEORT of 8.80 
seconds.\198\ While other methods for measuring distraction during 
performance of a secondary task have been developed (including those 
used in the JAMA Guidelines), no general consensus exists as to the 
threshold at which an absolute level of distraction due to a driver 
performing a task becomes unacceptably high. However, a relative limit 
can be developed by comparing the distraction level associated with a 
driver performing an ``acceptable'' reference task with the distraction 
level associated with a driver performing new tasks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ U.S. DOT/NHTSA--Technical Correction to 77 FR 11200, 
February 24, 2012, Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines 
for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices, Notice of Proposed Federal 
Guidelines, posted 05/09/2012, accessible at www.regulations.gov, 
Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on NHTSA's testing, NHTSA determined a task acceptability 
criterion of a maximum of 12.0 seconds for the 85th percentile TEORT. 
This is slightly less stringent than the task acceptability criterion 
contained in the JAMA Guidelines, i.e., an average TEORT of 8.0 seconds 
or less which would correspond to a maximum 85th percentile TEORT of 
approximately 10.5 seconds.
    Unlike the Alliance and NHTSA Guidelines, the JAMA Guidelines only 
include a TEORT criterion and do not contain any task acceptability 
criteria related to individual glance time (i.e., a task could be 
associated with one single glance lasting 8 seconds and still meet the 
criteria in the JAMA Guidelines). As the agency indicated in both the 
Initial Notice and this notice, the agency believes that both long eye 
glances from the forward road scene and longer TEORT have negative 
effects on driving safety. Accordingly, the agency has included long-
eye-glance-based task acceptability criterion in the NHTSA Guidelines 
(i.e., for at least 21 of 24 test participants, no more than 15 percent 
(rounded up) of the total number of eye glances away from the forward 
road scene have durations of greater than 2.0 seconds while performing 
a task one time), making the NHTSA Guidelines more stringent than the 
JAMA Guidelines with respect to certain tasks. For example, some tasks 
that would meet the JAMA Guidelines (e.g., those tasks associated with 
a single glance lasting 8 seconds) would not meet the acceptance 
criteria of the NHTSA Guidelines. Given the different approaches taken 
in the JAMA Guidelines and the NHTSA Guidelines, the agency does not 
believe it is

[[Page 24865]]

necessarily appropriate to use the TEORT criterion in the JAMA 
Guidelines, which is meant to be a standalone criterion, as the NHTSA 
TEORT criterion, which is one of several glance acceptance criteria 
used to assess distraction potential.
4. Suggestions for More Stringent Task Acceptance Criteria
a. Summary of Comments
    Several commenters supported stricter task acceptance criteria. 
Comments received from Focus Driven criticized the guidelines for 
allowing any engagement in entertainment tasks.

    * * * the suggestion of the ``2-12'' rule (i.e.: designing 
infotainment applications that require no more than 2 seconds of 
visual distraction at a time for various user inputs and not more 
than 12 seconds of total time to complete a specific function) are 
themselves recommendations that support distracted driving which is 
completely counterintuitive to safety.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ Comments received from Focus Driven: Advocates for Cell-
Free Driving, p. 2. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We would never set voluntary guidelines to install devices to 
enable alcohol impaired driving, so to do the same for the temporary 
impairment associated with electronics that have nothing to do with 
the safe operation of a vehicle is a large step in the wrong 
direction if our intent is to prevent crashes (saving property, 
injury, and lives.) \200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ Ibid.

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) also suggested 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
adopting stricter acceptance test criteria:

    The proposed guidelines are somewhat stronger than current 
industry guidelines, but NHTSA should set the safety bar even 
higher. The NTSB urges NHTSA to go beyond its stated expectation of 
``interfaces that do not exceed a reasonable level of complexity for 
visual-manual secondary tasks'' and strive for more than 
``discouraging the introduction of egregiously distracting non-
driving tasks performed using integrated devices.'' Instead, NHTSA 
should be promoting integrated devices that provide a safety 
benefit, or that at least do not increase the risk in any 
measureable way.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ Comments received from National Transportation Safety 
Board (NTSB), p. 3. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0066.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    NTSB and some safety advocacy groups, including Focus Driven, 
recommended that NHTSA should set a stricter benchmark than the 
proposed acceptance criteria based on the manual radio tuning task. 
Comments suggested the criteria be modified to recommend providing 
drivers access to only integrated devices that provide a safety 
benefit, or that at least do not increase driving risk in any 
measureable way. NHTSA believes that such stricter criteria than were 
proposed could not be justified for the reasons discussed below.
    First, driving is frequently monotonous. Part of the reason why 
drivers perform distracting tasks is to create sufficient mental 
stimulation. If drivers are insufficiently stimulated while driving, 
they may become drowsy with known, negative safety consequences. This 
effect is indicated by naturalistic driving data. Examining Figure 1, 
the only tasks that had the same or lower crash/near-crash odds ratios 
as average driving were interacting with passengers (both for passenger 
vehicles and heavy trucks) and talking/listening on a hands-free cell 
phone (only for heavy trucks; there was insufficient hands free cell 
phone data in the 100-Car Study to generate a meaningful odds ratio for 
this activity for passenger vehicles). The lower odds ratio for 
interacting with passengers may be explainable due to the passenger 
acting, in part, as an extra set of eyes for the driver. The lower odds 
ratio for talking/listening on a hands-free cell phone for heavy trucks 
is thought to be due to this activity providing stimulation to the 
driver and reducing their likelihood of being drowsy.
    Second, the performance of some secondary tasks using electronic 
devices can reduce distraction. An example of this is route navigation. 
The performance of some secondary tasks with a route navigation system 
(e.g., destination entry) does increase driving risk. However, if 
drivers cannot use route navigation systems while driving, they may 
rely on more distracting alternatives such as memorized directions, 
paper maps, or written directions while driving. These alternatives 
create distraction associated with handling paper and looking away from 
the roadway to look at the paper and are likely to increase cognitive 
distraction and driver workload \202\ as the driver concentrates on 
looking for particular streets or landmarks and not on the driving 
task.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ Srinivasan, K.S. and Jovanis, P.P, ``Effect of In-Vehicle 
Route Guidance Systems of Driver Workload and Choice of Vehicle 
Speed: Findings from a Driving Simulator Experiment,'' in Ergonomics 
and Safety of Intelligent Driver Interfaces, edited by Ian Noy, 
Transport Canada, Ottawa, ON, published by Lawrence Eribaum 
Associates, May 1997. Accessed at: https://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/publication_detail.php?id=560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Devices like route navigation systems may not be safer than ``just 
driving'' (i.e., driving while not performing any secondary tasks), but 
they can be a less distracting option to perform certain tasks that 
drivers have to perform. By recommending that the distraction potential 
of electronic devices be kept below a certain threshold but not locked 
out altogether, the agency believes that conformance to the NHTSA 
Guidelines can minimize driver distraction.
    For these reasons, NHTSA believes that more stringent Guideline 
acceptance criteria recommendations may have disadvantages and that 
limiting secondary tasks that increase driving risk relative to 
ordinary, average driving in any measureable way would not maximize 
overall driving safety. Therefore, NHTSA has not adopted this 
suggestion from commenters for increased stringency.
5. Concerns Expressed About Long Eye Glances
a. Summary of Comments
    Many commenters cited the results of two recent studies that 
reanalyzed video data from the 100-Car naturalistic study. The major 
finding of these new studies is that when video data from the 5 seconds 
immediately before an event identified as a crash or near crash are 
compared with video data from control-group episodes, the crash/near-
crash episodes have higher incidence of single long-duration glances 
than the control-group episodes. While previous analyses have shown a 
similar relation between Total Eyes-Off-Road Time (TEORT) and crash/
near-crash risk, these new analyses show a stronger relation between 
single glance duration and increased risk of an adverse outcome.
    These new findings were cited repeatedly in the docket comments as 
the basis for various recommendations about the use of glance metrics 
in the proposed guidelines. Several commenters concluded that TEORT may 
be less important as a criterion for assessing the distraction 
potential of tasks performed with integrated in-vehicle systems than 
had been previously thought and consequently that emphasis should be 
shifted to metrics that focus on single glance duration. A comment from 
Agero, Inc. made this point:

    Further consideration should be devoted to determining whether 
longest glance time is a more effective HMI measurement of event 
detection than total glance time or average glance time.\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ Comments received from Agero, Inc., p. 8. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0090.

    The reference to ``event detection'' in comments about glance 
metrics reflects the influence of work done by Professor Richard A. 
Young, who provided

[[Page 24866]]

extensive commentary on the importance of single glance duration. 
Professor Young presented the results of several analyses to support an 
argument that went beyond the recommendations presented by the auto 
manufacturers on this topic. The following excerpts summarize the main 
components of his argument. In the first excerpt, Professor Young uses 
the new 100-Car Study findings to argue that long-duration glances are 
more likely to reflect involvement of attentional processes than 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
shorter-duration glances:

    Long single glances may reflect an underlying attentional 
process in attention shifts. These [new] analyses indicate it is not 
just the mechanistic aspect of eyes off the road that is the sole 
problem in missed events or crash causation. The attentional 
processes underlying long single glances play an independent role in 
event detection and probably in crash causation as well. It is 
therefore important to ensure that long single glances are 
adequately covered by the criteria in the NHTSA (2010) 
Guidelines.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ Comments received from Professor Richard A. Young, 
Attachment 2, p. 3. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0106.

    Elsewhere, Professor Young attempts further to explain why long 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
single glances may be a concern. He offers the following:

    Long single glances may reflect attention capture, a prolonged 
engagement of attention at an in-vehicle location. When there is no 
subjective cue or external cue to interrupt attention to a secondary 
task, a glance to the task can linger if processing is not complete. 
* * * Hence drivers can maintain a long single glance without being 
aware of it during relatively short, low workload tasks. These long 
single glances are associated with poor event detection and 
response, even more so than eyes off-road time or other driver 
workload metrics.\205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ Ibid, p. 6.

    Professor Young presents analyses of the Crash Avoidance Metrics 
Partnership Driver Workload Metrics project data and of Virginia Tech 
Transportation Institute Smart Road data to demonstrate that event 
detection metrics provide information independent of the information 
provided by glance-based metrics (TEORT, number of glances) and driving 
performance metrics (lane keeping, headway maintenance). He offers the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
following summary:

    Event detection explains about one-third of the variance in 
driver performance, orthogonal to the variance in driver workload 
metrics, including eyes-off-road time (EORT), number of glances, 
lane keeping, speed maintenance, headway or any other conventional 
driver workload metric.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ Ibid.

    On the question of how to incorporate the long-duration glances 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
into an assessment protocol, Professor Young offers the following:

    The draft NHTSA (2012) Guidelines have attempted an important 
advancement over the Alliance Guidelines in this regard, by adding a 
third glance criterion intending to limit long glances, * * * 
Unfortunately, a question remains about whether the NHTSA proposed 
method and criterion is, by itself, adequate to limit long single 
glances.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ Ibid, p. 4.

    Professor Young presents hypothetical data to create a scenario, 
demonstrating that the combined effects of the three eye glance 
criteria proposed by NHTSA (mean glance duration, TEORT, and proportion 
of long glances) allow for the possibility of single glances as long as 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-6 seconds in duration.

    If the criteria above are applied to hypothetical data, it 
becomes apparent that, in theory, tasks with 7 to 10 average glances 
of 1 sec each could have one single glance as long as 3-6 sec and 
still meet NHTSA glance criteria.\208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ Ibid.

    Although the inclusion of a long-glance criterion is positive, 
Professor Young argues that because of the hypothesized connection 
between long glances and attention shifts, a separate criterion is 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
needed:

    Simply tightening the single glance duration limit to be lower 
than the 15% criterion is not recommended because it does not 
address the underlying problem of the attentional shifts that give 
rise to long single glance durations. Instead, it is recommended 
that an additional event detection and response test (above and 
beyond glance measures) is required to evaluate the effect that a 
device or task has on the underlying attentional processes which 
contribute to controlling long single glances.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ Ibid, p. 12.

    To summarize, Professor Young is making the following arguments:
    1. Long-duration glances are implicated in crash causation.
    2. Long-duration glances are more likely to reflect attentional 
processing than shorter-duration glances.
    3. Glance-based metrics do not provide all the information 
necessary to determine where the driver's attention is directed.
    4. Proposed NHTSA criteria still permit occurrence of single long-
duration glances.
    5. An event-detection metric, which requires responses to targets, 
provides better information about where a driver's attention is 
directed than any of the glance-based metrics.
    Evidence of Professor Young's influence is evident in comments 
received from the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association.

    He [Professor Young] notes that the longest glance time--not the 
total glance time or the average glance time--plays a different role 
in ``event detection' and, thus, requires more coverage in the 
guidelines. * * * MEMA urges the agency to consider event detection 
in the applicable performance tests.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ Comments received from Motor & Equipment Manufacturers 
Association, p. 3. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA shares these commenters' concerns about the negative effects 
of long eye glances away from the forward road scene on driving safety. 
Accordingly, NHTSA included a long eye glance-based task acceptability 
criterion to its Driver Distraction Guidelines not present in the 
Alliance Guidelines: that, for at least 21 of 24 test participants, no 
more than 15 percent (rounded up) of the total number of eye glances 
away from the forward road scene have durations of greater than 2.0 
seconds while performing a task one time. Professor Young points out 
\211\ that a task can have one single long glance (in the 3 to 6 second 
range) and still meet all of NHTSA's task acceptance criteria. This is 
correct; NHTSA agrees that our current long eye glance criterion does 
not completely resolve this issue. While we think that it is a step in 
the right direction, secondary tasks that involve short term levels of 
high cognitive distraction are not screened out by our current task 
acceptance criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ Comments received from Professor Richard A. Young, 
Attachment 2, p. 4. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters thought that long eye glances away from the forward 
road scene might have a greater effect on driving safety than does a 
longer TEORT. NHTSA does not know whether this is the case but suspects 
that both long eye glances away from the forward road scene and a 
longer TEORT have negative effects on driving safety. Fortunately, 
NHTSA does not have to resolve this question since our task acceptance 
tests can (and do) have multiple acceptance criteria.
6. Eye Glance Measurement Issues
a. Summary of Comments
    Two comments were received addressing procedural details of the 
collection and use of eye glance data for determining the total eyes-
off-road time. Comments provided by the Swedish Road and Transport 
Research Institute (VTI) addressed the precision and

[[Page 24867]]

repeatability of recording gaze direction, recommending that a well-
calibrated eye tracker would be preferable to manual coding of gaze 
direction from face video:

    To ensure sufficient accuracy, precision, and repeatability of 
an eye tracker, it is not sufficient to use manual coding of gaze 
direction. A more objective way of doing this is to use a number of 
fixed gaze targets (for example on the simulation screen) that the 
driver is instructed to look at. It is then an easy task to measure 
the deviation between the location of the gaze target and the eye 
trackers estimate of the drivers gaze. This procedure is commonly 
used in head mounted eye trackers, and could easily be adopted for 
remote eye trackers as well. Crisp thresholds for accuracy and 
precision could then be established instead of the soft boundaries 
that follow from manual coding.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ Comments received from the Swedish Road and Transport 
Research Institute, pp. 3-4. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket 
NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 056.

    The following comment from Volvo was directed at the level of 
effort required to accomplish manual reduction of video data to obtain 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
glance information required by the guideline metrics:

    * * * reduction of eye glance location from full motion video is 
very time consuming, especially considering the vast number of tests 
that would need to be conducted if following the recommended test 
procedures.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ Comments received from Volvo Car Corporation, p. 5. 
Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    While NHTSA shares many of VTI's concerns about the accuracy of 
manual coding of gaze direction from face video, we also have concerns 
about eye tracker accuracy. NHTSA has had extensive experience with eye 
trackers during driver distraction testing performed by its Vehicle 
Research and Test Center (VRTC) over the last five years. 
Unfortunately, VRTC's work has found numerous eye tracker accuracy 
issues.
    Therefore, NHTSA is not prepared to recommend the use of an eye 
tracker as the sole method for eye glance data reduction. In VRTC's 
experience, both methods of eye glance data reduction are resource 
intensive and have reasonable, but not excellent, accuracy. For this 
reason, NHTSA has included both eye tracker and manual coding of gaze 
direction from face video as acceptable methods for eye glance data 
reduction in its Guidelines.
    NHTSA shares many of Volvo's concerns about the resources need to 
reduce eye glance data either with an eye tracker or through manual 
coding of gaze direction from face video. This is one reason that we 
have included Occlusion testing in NHTSA's list of recommended task 
acceptance test protocols. In our experience, Occlusion testing 
provides comparable results but uses fewer resources.
7. Occlusion Acceptance Test Criteria Issues
a. Summary of Comments
    Comments were provided about the Occlusion Task Acceptance Test 
protocol contained in the proposed NHTSA Guidelines. Some comments 
raised more general concerns about the method, while others addressed 
the specific criterion value proposed by NHTSA.
    Chrysler presented comments that were critical of the occlusion 
method. After acknowledging some benefits of occlusion, including the 
fact that no simulator is required, the relatively low effort and cost, 
and harmonization with the Alliance Guidelines, Chrysler identified 
several problems with the procedure, which were discovered in their own 
use of the procedure:

    * * * the occlusion apparatus forcibly restricts single glance 
duration which does not reflect real world conditions. This was 
noted by the participant's lack of peripheral vision during the 
occlusion intervals. Because the individual is temporarily blinded 
when the shutters on the goggles close, there is a tendency for some 
individuals to lose kinesthetic awareness. The individual's body and 
hands have tendency to drift while the shutters are closed, 
something that doesn't normally happen during actual driving. For 
these reasons, the OCC method has not been and continues to not be 
preferred by Chrysler.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ Comments received from Chrysler Group LLC, p. 5. Accessed 
at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 
0095.

    Volkswagen Group of America (VW) provided detailed comments on the 
proposed 9-second Total Shutter Open Time (TSOT) criterion value, 
referring extensively to the results of a report \215\ released by 
NHTSA in support of the guidelines proposal:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Smith, L.A., Martin, J. & 
Mazzae, E.N. Driver Behavior During Visual-Manual Secondary Task 
Performance: Occlusion Method Versus Simulated Driving. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0077.

    The report found that the 9 second TSOT criterion was too 
stringent, in that both radio tuning and destination entry did not 
meet the criterion. The 9 second TSOT criterion was derived from the 
12-second TEORT [Total Eyes-Off-Road Time] criterion established 
based on testing in another study. * * * NHTSA refers to the assumed 
3:4 relationship between TSOT and TEORT as the ``75 percent field 
factor.'' However, this assumed ``field factor'' proves to be 
unsupported by the data in the subject report which finds that both 
a regression analysis and a comparison of mean values showed that 
the relationship between TSOT and TEORT was near 1:1. In spite of 
this contrary finding, and the fact that the Prius radio tuning task 
did not meet the NHTSA criterion of 9 seconds TSOT, NHTSA 
nevertheless put forward a final acceptance criteria of 9 seconds 
for TSOT.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ Comments received from Volkswagen Group of America, 
Attachment, p. 4. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0101.

    Volkswagen was critical of a re-analysis of TSOT data that was 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
described in the above-mentioned technical report:

    * * * the analysis of TSOT data was redone using a subset of the 
data collected, re-stratified into different age groupings, and 
discarding the older test subjects. Only after discarding the data 
from the older subjects was it possible to claim support for the 
finding that the Prius radio tuning task met the 9-second TSOT 
criterion, while the destination entry task did not. This type of 
data manipulation to support a desired result is not consistent with 
sound scientific or engineering practices. We also note that the 
contradicted assumption that there is a 3:4 relationship between 
TSOT and TEORT has yet to be addressed by NHTSA.\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ Ibid.

    Volkswagen also cited the findings of a separate study presenting 
results of a survey of experts on various issues relating to the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
guidelines proposal. They cite the following finding from that report:

    The experts agree that the 15 seconds total shutter open time 
was not excessive and seemed a good value to use.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ Ibid, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    Initially, NHTSA shared Chrysler's concerns about occlusion 
testing. However, based on NHTSA experience using this protocol in its 
own research and a careful review of the occlusion literature, we think 
that these concerns are more theoretical than real. Occlusion testing 
has substantial advantages: no driving simulator is required, 
relatively low effort is involved in implementing the protocol, the 
protocol is easy for test participants to comply with, testing cost is 
lower than other available methods such as driving simulation based 
methods, and results are repeatable. While NHTSA has learned that many 
manufacturers currently perform occlusion testing to support their 
product development research, NHTSA notes that groups who do not prefer 
the occlusion method are free to use the Eye Glance Measurement

[[Page 24868]]

Using Driving Simulator Testing protocol to assess their products' 
conformance to the NHTSA Guidelines.
    In response to Volkswagen's comments critical of NHTSA's Occlusion 
Testing acceptability criterion, NHTSA revisited its basis for the 
specific value proposed. NHTSA agrees with Volkswagen that its 2011 
study did not support a 75 percent field factor relating occlusion 
testing TSOT to TEORT for driving glances. The 2011 NHTSA study showed, 
both through regression analysis and a comparison of mean values that 
the relationship between TSOT and TEORT was near 1:1.
    In addition to the 2011 NHTSA study, other sources of information 
consulted in determining the Occlusion Testing criterion included:
     Occlusion testing theory: assumes that every time a driver 
looks away from the forward roadway (for occlusion testing, each such 
eye glance is assumed to be 2.0-seconds long), the first approximately 
0.50 seconds is spent transitioning the driver's eyes from the roadway 
to the object being looked at.\219\ As a result, only 1.5 seconds of a 
2.0-second eye glance are actually focused on the device being used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ Perez, M., Hulse, M., and Angell, L., ``Support for NHTSA 
Visual-Manual Guidelines: Expert Review of the Visual Occlusion 
Method and How It Compares to Driver Eye Glance Behavior,'' p. 12, 
DOT HS number not yet available, April 2012, accessible at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0075.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ISO Standard 16673:2007 specifies an occlusion vision 
interval (shutter open time) of 1.5 seconds.
    [cir] Based on occlusion testing theory that the 1.5-second shutter 
open time is equivalent to an off-road glance duration of 2.0 seconds, 
this would give a ratio of 0.75 (i.e., 1.5/2.0 = 0.75). Applying this 
ratio to the TSOT/TEORT relationship results in a field factor of 75 
percent.
     JAMA Guidelines: These Guidelines specify a maximum TSOT 
value of 7.5 seconds and a maximum TEORT value of 8 seconds.
    [cir] These values give a TSOT/TEORT ratio of 0.8875.
     Hashimoto and Atsumi (2001), cited by the Alliance in 
explaining their basis for an occlusion TSOT criterion, found that a 
TEORT value (they refer to as ``TGT'' or total glance time) of 8 
seconds was equivalent to a TSOT value of 7.1 s.
    [cir] These values give a TSOT/TEORT ratio of 0.9375.
    These sources suggest a TSOT to TEORT ratio ranging from 0.75 to 1. 
In the proposed NHTSA Guidelines, NHTSA relied on occlusion testing 
theory and ISO 16673:(2007) for the 75 percent field factor. 
Accordingly, NHTSA determined an initial occlusion TSOT criterion of 9 
seconds based on the driving glance TEORT criterion of 12 seconds.
    Since publication of the proposed NHTSA Guidelines, additional 
research has found the TSOT/TEORT ratio to be closer to 1.0. In 
addition to the April 2012 research report cited by Volkswagen, 
recently completed NHTSA-sponsored research conducted by the University 
of Washington and University of Wisconsin \220\ directly compared 
secondary tasks using both driving simulator and occlusion protocols 
and found that use of a 12-second criterion for occlusion TSOT provided 
task acceptability results that were more consistent with results based 
on a 12-second TEORT criterion for driving glances. Consistency of the 
outcomes of these two protocols is important, since the NHTSA 
Guidelines specify both of these protocols as options for assessing 
conformance. Given that two research studies now cast doubt on the 
equivalency of the originally proposed 9-second occlusion TSOT 
criterion value with the 12-second TEORT for driving glances, NHTSA 
believes that reconsideration of the TSOT criterion is warranted. Based 
on the results of the two recent NHTSA research studies, NHTSA believes 
that a TSOT criterion value of 12 seconds is more appropriate based on 
the current state of knowledge in this area and anticipates that a 12-
second TSOT criterion will be more likely to provide comparable results 
for task acceptability as compared to outcomes obtained using the Eye 
Glance Measurement Using Driving Simulator Testing protocol and its 
associated 12-second TEORT criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ Boyle, L., Lee, J., Peng, Y., Ghazizadeh, M., Miller, E., 
Wu, Y., Huimin, X, and Chrysler, S., Text Reading and Text Input 
Assessment in Support of the NHTSA Distraction Guidelines: Final 
Report. DOT HS (number not yet available), October 2012, accessible 
at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the TSOT criterion has been amended, we are retaining the 
1.5-second unoccluded viewing interval for occlusion testing. Given 
NHTSA's research showing a 1:1 relationship between TSOT and TEORT, a 
1.5-second viewing interval corresponds to 1.5 seconds of driving 
simulator eyes-off-road time. The 1.5-second viewing interval duration 
is specified in ISO 16673:2007 and is generally consistent with data 
showing mean glance durations for radio tuning of between 0.9 and 1.4 
seconds. Specifically, the Dingus \221\ and Rockwell \222\ studies 
cited in the Alliance Guidelines indicated mean glance durations of 
1.10 seconds and 1.44 seconds, respectively. NHTSA's studies indicated 
radio tuning mean glance durations of 0.92 seconds \223\ and 1.00 
second.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ Dingus, T.A., Attentional Demand Evaluation for an 
Automobile Moving-Map Navigation System, unpublished doctoral 
dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 
Blacksburg, VA, 1987.
    \222\ Rockwell, T.H., ``Spare Visual Capacity in Driving 
Revisited: New Empirical Results for an Old Idea,'' in A. G. Gale et 
al (editors), Vision in Vehicles II (pp. 317-324, Amsterdam: 
Elsevier, 1988.
    \223\ Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Mazzae, E.N., Martin, J., 
and Smith, L.A., ``Driver Behavior During Visual-Manual Secondary 
Task Performance: Occlusion Method Versus Simulated Driving,'' NHTSA 
Technical Report (in press), accessible at https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2010-0053-0077, April 
2012.
    \224\ Perez, M., Owens, J., Viita, D, Angell, L, Ranney, T.A., 
Baldwin, G.H.S., Parmer, E., Martin, J., Garrott, W.R., and Mazzae, 
E.N., ``Summary of Radio Tuning Effects on Visual and Driving 
Performance Measures--Simulator and Test Track Studies,'' NHTSA 
Technical Report in press. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket 
NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0076, April 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Suggestions To Include Effects of Workload Managers in Task 
Acceptance Criteria
a. Summary of Comments
    Several commenters warned that the NHTSA Guidelines' requirements 
could discourage the pursuit of new technological solutions to mitigate 
driver distraction. Dr. Paul A. Green described the impending emergence 
of workload managers and how the proposed guidelines could stifle 
development:

    * * * the guidelines ignore the fact that what a driver can 
safely do at any given time depends on the workload of the primary 
task. On a straight section of an expressway, with no traffic 
nearby, in daylight, in clear weather, a driver could conceivably do 
a great deal more safely than the proposed guidelines allow. 
However, in adverse conditions much less could be advisable. Thus, 
if the primary task workload is known, information provided by a 
workload manager, then what the driver can do becomes a set of 
values for each situation, not a single set of values as they are 
now. Vehicles with workload managers are currently being sold in 
Europe, and there is interest in selling them in the U.S. Providing 
this flexibility, recognizing what drivers can safely do, will make 
the guidelines more sensible and acceptable to the driving 
public.\225\

    \225\ Comments received from Dr. Paul Green, p. 7. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dr. Green continues, presenting his assessment of the implication 
of failing to build flexibility into the guidelines:


[[Page 24869]]


    Inflexible guidelines discourage further development [of] 
workload managers, a potentially lifesaving technology.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ Ibid.

    While not addressing the issue of workload managers directly, the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Automakers described the same concern more broadly:

    * * * it is important to recognize the limitations of the 
proposed Guidelines as a means of addressing the distraction matter 
over the coming years, so that the Guidelines do not become an 
impediment to technological innovation.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ Comments received from Global Automakers. Attachment, p. 
1. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 0099.

    American Honda Motor Co. offered similar sentiments, referring to 
the table in the proposal listing tasks for which the proposed 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
guidelines are intended to be applicable:

    The restrictions on the items listed in Table 9 may also hamper 
research and development of other systems that can be beneficial to 
safety. For example, automakers are beginning to bring the first 
workload management systems to market, combining crash avoidance 
systems with driver monitoring systems in a manner that offers the 
ability to shed in-vehicle tasks while alerting the driver of the 
need to focus their attention on the road. Future iterations of 
workload management systems offer the promise of keeping the driver 
engaged in the act of driving (helping to prevent disengagement that 
can lead to drowsiness), while keeping the driver in the optimal 
engagement range on the Yerkes-Dodson curve by discouraging 
overstimulation to the point of distraction.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ Comments received from American Honda Motor Co, Inc., p. 
4. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 112.

    As suggested by Honda in the previous comment, workload managers 
can potentially involve integration with other driver support systems. 
Several comments referred to these systems and made recommendations on 
how they should be accommodated in the proposed guidelines. Volvo Car 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporation offered the following comment:

    Driver state assessment is critical in determining the attention 
level of the driver and thus, critical to determining the potential 
to perform further secondary non-driving-related tasks. The 
development of driver state assessment systems is happening rapidly 
and these systems in combination with driving control support 
systems will have an impact in assisting drivers in managing the 
real-time workload for each instant in time. The potential of these 
systems for assisting drivers should be reflected in the test 
procedures by allowing them to be active during the tests.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ Comments received from Volvo Car Corporation, p. 5. 
Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 108.

    Honda provided the following comment on driver assist and crash 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
avoidance systems:

    * * * automakers and suppliers are continuing to research and 
develop advanced methods of displays that minimize distraction while 
satisfying consumer demand for in-vehicle technologies and features. 
One example of this is the rapid application of various driver 
assist and crash avoidance technologies. These technologies may 
offset some risks of driver distraction by monitoring roadways for 
impending crashes and help focus the driver's attention to an 
impending risk.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ Comments received from American Honda Motor Co, Inc., p. 
3. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    Unfortunately, workload managers and/or other means for driver 
state assessment have not yet reached a state of maturity where NHTSA 
can determine how they should affect task acceptance criteria. NHTSA 
cannot address workload management systems until research has further 
progressed.
    As explained elsewhere in this notice, NHTSA's Driver Distraction 
Guidelines will be revised as needed. The issuance with this notice of 
the Phase 1 NHTSA Guidelines, while significant, is only one step in 
the process of the development of NHTSA's Guidelines. The issuance of 
Phases 2 and 3 of the Guidelines covering portable and aftermarket 
devices, and auditory-vocal human-machine interfaces, respectively, 
will provide additional guidance. NHTSA also intends to provide 
Guideline Interpretation letters as needed.

Definition of Goal, Dependent Task, and Subtask

a. Summary of Comments
    Several comments requested clarification of the definition of the 
goal of a task. Nissan North America offered the following comment:

    It is unclear how to apply this definition of `goal' for some 
types of tasks. It can be easy to define the goal for tasks which 
have a clear intention, such as destination entry. However, it is 
difficult to quantify the ``driver's intended state'' for tasks 
which may depend on the driver's ``mood'' or ``feelings,'' such as 
browsing radio stations or audio inputs for a song the driver 
likes.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ Comments received from Nissan North America, Attachment, 
p. 1. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, 
Document Number 0096.

    Nissan asserts that the need for clarification of the definition of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a goal depends on the protocols selected for the final guidelines.

    Nissan believes clarification may be necessary depending on the 
evaluation protocols provided for in the final guidelines. If the 
final guidelines were limited to a single secondary task evaluation 
method such as occlusion testing, the proposed definition of `goal' 
would need to be adjusted to limit its scope to tasks which can be 
evaluated using the recommended tests and criteria. Alternatively, a 
general definition of `goal' is acceptable if a variety of 
evaluation methods are provided.\232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ Ibid, p. 2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global Automakers provided the following comment:

    In some cases, it is difficult to determine the driver's 
``goal.'' Tasks which depend on drivers' clear intention, such as 
destination entry, are easier to determine. On the other hand, for 
tasks which depend upon the driver's mood or feelings, such as 
browsing audio, it can be difficult to determine precisely the 
driver's goal.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ Comments received from Global Automakers, Attachment, p. 
4. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 0099.

    Several comments were posted on the definition of a dependent task. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. provided the following comment:

    Honda recommends that the definition and examples of dependent 
tasks be enhanced to further clarify the distinction between a 
dependent task and an independent task.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ Comments received from American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 
Attachment, p. 7. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0112.

    Honda cites passages from the proposed Guidelines, which lead them 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to the following conclusion:

    The aforementioned text indicates that dependent tasks are 
contingent upon antecedent tasks and suggests a subtask could be 
dependent upon other tasks or subtasks. Therefore, examples in which 
dependent and independent tasks and subtasks are identified would be 
helpful.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ Ibid, p. 7.

    Honda provides the following example, for which they seek 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
clarification:

    As an example, we seek clarification on the task of listening to 
the radio that appears to be comprised of the following:
    1. Turning the radio on (an independent subtask),
    2. Selecting AM or FM (a dependent subtask), and
    3. Selecting the frequency (a dependent subtask).
    Further clarification and examples would help us establish our 
procedures, and help to assure that exercising the guidelines will 
yield consistent results. To enhance our understanding of the 
dependent and independent task definitions, additional

[[Page 24870]]

examples of each type of task would be helpful, as would 
descriptions of how these definitions apply within specific 
sequences of events. Examples should include the amount of time that 
may pass before a subtask is considered an independent task and a 
discussion of whether the rate or frequency at which a driver 
performs a task should be taken into consideration.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ Ibid, pp. 7-8.

    Nissan cited the definition of a subtask, which appeared in the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
proposed guidelines and provided the following comment:

    This definition may be interpreted differently depending on the 
task being evaluated and may be difficult to apply consistently. The 
example NHTSA provided in the preamble of the notice which describes 
how this definition would apply to entering a street name and street 
number during destination entry helps clarify this definition, 
however we request that NHTSA provide additional examples.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ Comments received from Nissan North America, Attachment, 
p. 2. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, 
Document Number 0096.

    An almost identical comment was provided by Global Automakers.
b. NHTSA's Response
    Due to the large number of possible electronic device-related 
secondary tasks, and the large number of possible inputs that can be 
made for many tasks, there are a number of difficult problems in 
defining such terms as task goals, subtasks, and dependent tasks. To 
try to make clearer the definitions of these terms, NHTSA has prepared 
and placed in the Driver Distraction Guidelines docket,\238\ a report 
titled ``Explanatory Material About the Definition of a Task Used in 
NHTSA's Driver Distraction Guidelines, and Task Examples.'' \239\ 
Persons interested in this issue are encouraged to read this report 
which contains much information about task-related definitions beyond 
what could be included in the NHTSA Guidelines (including numerous 
detailed examples of tasks). Portions of this report have been relied 
upon in this notice to clarify the definitions of goal, dependent task, 
and subtask.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ Docket NHTSA-2010-0053. The docket is accessible at: 
https://www.regulations.gov/.
    \239\ Angell, L., Perez, M., and Garrott, W.R., ``Explanatory 
Material About the Definition of a Task Used in NHTSA's Driver 
Distraction Guidelines, and Task Examples,'' accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0088, 
posted May 18, 2012. Soon to be released as a NHTSA technical 
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In these NHTSA Guidelines, Goal is defined as a device state sought 
by a driver. Goal achievement is defined as achieving a device state 
that meets the driver's intended state, independent of the particular 
device being executed or method of execution.
    The above mentioned NHTSA report expands on this with the 
following:

    In the definition of ``goal'' used in the Phase 1 NHTSA 
Distraction Guidelines, the state sought by a driver is defined in 
terms of a ``device state.'' This means the goal is defined in terms 
of a state that can be observed objectively on the HMI. The 
individual who has the goal is the ``participant in the test.'' All 
the participants in a test will be given the goal by a tester (and 
goals for testable tasks will typically be meaningful ones, which 
might be performed by real drivers on the devices). More will be 
said about this later; suffice it to say now that planning prior to 
testing will identify the ``goals'' and ``tasks'' given to 
participants during testing. An example of a goal that is a ``device 
state'' would be ``radio on'' (as in, ``Your goal is to turn the 
radio on. Please begin now.''). This is a state of a device that can 
be objectively verified, perhaps in several ways, depending on the 
design. For example, a radio in the ``on'' state will produce 
``sound'' (if its volume is set to an audible level), it may 
generate visual messages on the associated display, and its 
associated control may have an indicator which will identify the 
state to which it is set.
    Goals (unlike sub-goals) typically are hardware-independent, and 
may be achieved in virtually any vehicle. Their achievement can be 
verified regardless of the particular method used to achieve the 
goal. For example, ``turn the radio on'' is a goal that typically 
could be achieved in any vehicle equipped with a radio. Also, 
regardless of whether it is turned on with a push-button, a rotary 
knob control, or with a voice command, achievement of the goal state 
(of the radio being ``on'') can be verified objectively from the 
state of the device itself.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ Ibid, p. 20.

    In these NHTSA Guidelines, Dependent Task is defined as a task that 
cannot be initiated until another task (the antecedent task) is 
completed. The task's start state is thus dependent upon the end state 
of another, antecedent, task.
    An antecedent task followed by a dependent task can be 
distinguished from a task that contains two subtasks by examining the 
end states of both the antecedent task and the dependent task. For the 
antecedent task-dependent task case, both tasks will end with the 
achievement of a driver goal (i.e., two driver goals will be achieved, 
one for the antecedent task and one for the dependent task). In 
contrast, for a task composed of two subtasks, only one driver goal 
will be achieved.
    For example, after choosing a restaurant from a navigation system's 
point-of-interest list (antecedent task), a driver is offered an 
internet function option of making a reservation at the restaurant 
(dependent task). The dependent task of making a reservation can only 
be initiated following the task of selecting a restaurant from within 
the navigation system.
    The above mentioned NHTSA report contains several examples of 
dependent tasks (see Examples 2A, 2B, and 2M, as well as 4A.1-A.5.) 
\241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ Ibid, pp. 78-82, 112-113, and 153-164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In these NHTSA Guidelines, Subtask is defined as a sub-sequence of 
control operations that is part of a larger testable task sequence--and 
which leads to a sub-goal that represents an intermediate state in the 
path to the larger goal toward which a driver is working.
    Subtasks should not be treated as separate dependent tasks. For 
example, entering the street name as part of navigation destination 
entry is not a separate task from entering the street number; rather, 
these are subtasks of the same task.
    The above mentioned NHTSA report expands on this with the 
following:

    * * * subtasks are sub-sequences of activity that represent 
achievement of only an intermediate step along the path to goal 
achievement, namely the sequence of activity required to reach a 
sub-goal. Drivers typically will persist beyond a sub-goal and 
continue with task activity through to the next sub-goal (and 
beyond), until the task is completed. And, like sub-goals or tasks, 
subtasks may be hardware or HMI dependent. They may vary in their 
details and in their order within a task, depending on the device, 
its functionality, and/or its HMI. * * * When entering a destination 
in a navigation system, one system may require entry of the STATE 
first and another may require its entry last. This is an indication 
that the subtask sequence of entering the STATE portion of the 
destination is a subtask within the entire task of entering a 
destination. The nature and order of the subtasks (done to reach 
sub-goals) depends upon the particular navigation system being 
used.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \242\ Ibid, p. 29.

    In answer to Honda's request for clarification, the task of tuning 
a radio in preparation for listening to it would be comprised of three 
subtasks. As Honda states, these would be:
    1. Turning the radio on (subtask),
    2. Selecting AM or FM (subtask), and
    3. Selecting the frequency (subtask).
    Subtasks after the initial one during a task frequently depend upon 
the prior subtasks that comprise a task. NHTSA has not designated these 
non-initial subtasks as dependent subtasks since we do not think that 
it helps people understand the task decomposition.
    As stated earlier, due to the large number of possible electronic 
device-related secondary tasks, and the large

[[Page 24871]]

number of possible inputs that can be made for many tasks, it is 
difficult to give clear, all-encompassing definitions of such terms as 
task goals, subtasks, and dependent tasks. NHTSA has tried to make our 
task-related definitions as clear as we can, but there may well be some 
situations for which application of these definitions is difficult. 
Organizations should feel free to bring these specific cases to NHTSA's 
attention via the previously-mentioned interpretation letter process 
and NHTSA will try to consistently apply its definitions to these 
difficult cases.

H. Driving Simulator Issues

1. Driving Simulator Specifications
a. Summary of Comments
    Several organizations provided comments requesting clarification 
about and/or making suggestions for specifications of simulators that 
can be used for testing under the proposed guidelines. Commenters 
included auto manufacturers (Volvo and BMW), research organizations 
(VTI [Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute] and the University 
of Iowa [National Advanced Driving Simulator and Simulation Center or 
NADS]), and a simulator development company (Realtime Technologies 
Inc.).
    The NADS provided the following general comments:

    There are many different kinds of driving simulators used by the 
human factors research community today and we feel some additional 
clarification in the guidelines as to what NHTSA intends to include 
and exclude in its testing protocols is needed.\243\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ Comments received from the University of Iowa, National 
Advanced Driving Simulator and Simulation Center, p. 1. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0071.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Volvo provided the following general comment:

    Simulator dimensions are dependent on the simulator software, 
the kind of simulator (fixed or moving base) and the kind of 
projection screen used (flat or 180 [degrees, presumably in a wrap-
around configuration]). Volvo Cars has modern car simulator test 
facilities that are suitable for the recommended test procedures; 
however, it does not meet some specific recommendations when it 
comes to locations and placements. Thus, we believe that the 
simulator specifications should be more flexible.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \244\ Comments received from Volvo Cars, p. 4. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0104.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BMW offered the following general comment:

    BMW has a state of the art driving simulator that is used for 
purposes of testing any effect of current and new features on the 
performance of the driver. BMW therefore considers the proposed 
driving simulator specifications in the Federal Guidelines as 
suggested minimum criteria.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ Comments received from BMW Group, p. 6. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0094.

    In addition to these general comments, specific comments were 
submitted pertaining to details of the simulator specifications 
contained in the proposed guidelines. Comments regarding the projection 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
system were prevalent, including the following comments from VTI:

    Screen locations ranging from 2.5 m and more from the driver eye 
point are quite sufficient.\246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ Comments received from Swedish National Road Transport 
Institute (VTI), p. 2. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket 
NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0056.

    The resolution of the computer generated image seems to be quite 
under specified and should also benefit to be calculate using the 
driver's eye point as references.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution should be given in dpi, to make the value 
independent of the screen size.\248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \248\ Ibid.

    On this same topic, the following comments were provided by the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NADS group:

    As currently specified [the guidelines] would exclude those 
systems which use computer display monitors rather than projectors. 
* * * there is no research evidence of which we are aware to support 
the use of projected imaged over monitor displays. Indeed, in order 
for these guidelines to be useful in the future, it may be best to 
avoid any reference to a single display method as the technology in 
this industry is rapidly changing. In addition to a resolution 
specification, the guidelines should also include some specification 
for field-of-view of the display. * * * it is unclear if the intent 
was to recommend only front-projection single-screen systems to the 
exclusion of other display technologies.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ Comments received from the University of Iowa, National 
Advanced Driving Simulator and Simulation Center, p. 1. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0071.

    Realtime Technologies cited research results supporting the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
following specific suggestions on this topic:

    * * * the minimum screen distance should be 3000 mm rather than 
4700 mm.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ Comments received from Realtime Technologies, Inc., p. 1. 
Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 0053.

    Drivers do not get additional accommodation depth cues for 
distances beyond 2000 mm while convergence depth cues can be used to 
10000 mm (Andersen, 2011). The literature states that for 
comfortable viewing (both accommodation and convergence) the 
distance should be at least 3000 mm (Lambooij, IJsselsteijn, 
Heynderickx, 2007). Comfortable accommodation distances start at 
2000 mm (Andersen, 2011).\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ Ibid.

    The resolution for the simulator should be specified in arc 
minutes per pixel rather than a particular screen size and 
resolution. This allows for a variety of screen configurations. The 
FAA requires their aviation training simulators to have an effective 
resolution of 3 arc-min/pixel or less (Stoner, Fisher, Mollenhauer, 
2011). The simulator described in the guidelines meets this 
requirement with a value of 1.7 arc-min/pixel. While visual acuity 
can be as high as 0.5 arc-min/pixel, looming cues are the most 
important aspect for car following and therefore driver distraction 
(Andersen, 2011). Plotkin's research (1984) suggests, at a visual 
update rate of 30 times per second (as specified in the guidelines), 
the effective resolution where a human can detect any looming cue 
will be 3.11 arc-min/pixel. Therefore we recommend that the minimum 
resolution for these tasks be set at 3 arc-min/pixel.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ Ibid.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Questions about other simulator specifications were raised by NADS:

    It is not clear if NHTSA intends to exclude driving simulators 
which use open cabs, partial cabs, and/or non-automotive seating and 
dashboard arrangements.\253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ Comments received from the University of Iowa, National 
Advanced Driving Simulator and Simulation Center, p. 1. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0071.

    Section V12.b included some description of the vehicle controls. 
This statement could be interpreted to exclude many simulators in 
use by University and Industry researchers which utilize gaming 
controls for steering and pedal driver inputs.\254\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further information on whether or not force feedback must be 
present on the steering wheel and pedals is also needed.\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ Ibid.

    It is not clear if NHTSA's intent was to exclude simulators with 
motion.\256\ VTI raised a concern about the driving simulator's vehicle 
dynamics simulation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \256\ Ibid.

    The guidelines lack a description of the vehicle's behavior on 
the road, i.e. the vehicle dynamics.\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ Comments received from the Swedish National Road Transport 
Institute (VTI), p. 2. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket 
NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA appreciates the helpful comments that we have received on 
this issue. In response, we have modified our recommended driving 
simulator specifications so that task acceptance testing may be 
performed on a broader variety of driving simulators.

[[Page 24872]]

    Before explaining the individual changes that we have made in 
response to comments to the recommended NHTSA driving simulator 
specifications, it may help to first explain NHTSA's goals for driving 
simulators.
    NHTSA believes task acceptance testing should be performable with 
very simple, inexpensive, driving simulators. We recognize that not 
every organization can afford to use the extremely high fidelity 
National Advanced Driving Simulator or even higher fidelity, moving 
base, driving simulators. We have deliberately tried to design our task 
acceptance test so it can be run on a low-end driving simulator. This 
does not preclude the use of a high-end simulator for task acceptance 
testing, but merely acknowledges that a low-end simulator is adequate.
    While we want testing to be performable with low-end driving 
simulators, NHTSA thinks that the driving simulators used for task 
acceptance testing should generate a pattern of eye glances similar to 
that seen when performing the same secondary task while driving an 
actual motor vehicle. One of the key consequences of this belief is 
that the roadway display should be far enough in front of the 
simulator's driver that visual accommodation must occur when the driver 
switches her gaze between the device interface and the roadway. In 
other words, the driver's eyes should be focused approximately at 
infinity when looking at the roadway and at the correct, much closer, 
distance when looking at the device display.
    Focusing on specific comments, first of all, as BMW suggests, the 
driving simulator specifications in the NHTSA Guidelines are suggested 
minimum criteria. We certainly have no problems with better driving 
simulators than specified in the NHTSA Guidelines but we do not want 
ones with less fidelity. Similarly, NHTSA's Guideline recommendations 
are not intended to exclude simulators with motion. Statements have 
been added to the NHTSA Guidelines clarifying both of these points.
    In response to VTI's comment, the NHTSA Guidelines do not contain a 
description of the vehicle dynamics because we believe the driving 
scenario being simulated is extremely simple--straight line, constant 
speed driving. Clearly the simulated vehicle needs to react 
appropriately if the driver turns the steering wheel, presses the brake 
pedal, or presses the throttle pedal. However, we do not think that an 
elaborate vehicle dynamics model is necessary; something along the 
lines of a linear three degree of freedom (lateral velocity, 
longitudinal velocity, and yaw rate) vehicle model should be quite 
sufficient. Again, if desired, more complex and accurate vehicle 
dynamics may be used, but they are not necessary. Statements have been 
added to the NHTSA Guidelines clarifying this point.
    In response to the NADS comments, NHTSA does not intend to exclude 
driving simulators using open or partial cabs. While NHTSA intends to 
perform its driving simulator based monitoring testing using actual 
production vehicles and actual copies of the electronic devices being 
tested, we do not think that every organization wanting to perform 
Guideline conformance testing has to use such a driving simulator. The 
important thing is that the driving simulator has a seating and 
dashboard arrangement similar to an actual production vehicle so that 
realistic eye glance behavior will occur. We do not think that non-
automotive seating and dashboard arrangements are adequate for task 
acceptance testing.
    NHTSA does not think that gaming controls for driver steering will 
provide an adequate level of realism. We believe an actual vehicle 
steering wheel mounted in a typical vehicle arrangement is necessary. 
Otherwise driver hand motions may not be realistic. For similar 
reasons, we think that force feedback should be present on the driving 
simulator's steering wheel. However, a linear feel (i.e., the restoring 
force is directly proportional to the amount of steering) should be 
adequate.
    Gaming style pedal controls are adequate since current task 
acceptance tests do not use any metrics that will be affected by the 
movement of the driver's feet. However, we do think that pedal force 
feedback should be provided to assist the driver in maintaining a 
constant speed. Again, very simple but realistic pedal force feedback 
should be adequate.
    Statements clarifying all of these points have been added to the 
NHTSA Guidelines.
    NHTSA did not intend to exclude driving simulators using computer 
display monitors rather than projectors. Similarly, multiple screen 
visual displays and rear-project display technologies are perfectly 
acceptable.
    As suggested by the commenters, we have modified the NHTSA 
Guidelines to permit any display technology to be used. NHTSA's goal is 
to have the driving simulator display full-color, true-perspective, 
three-dimensional scenes (as viewed by the driver) free from 
distracting anomalies, such as abrupt changes in scene content, 
aliasing problems in image processing, and abrupt changes in 
illumination, color, or intensity (i.e., no flickering or flashing). 
NHTSA's Guideline recommendations do not show preference toward one 
display technology over others.
    NHTSA has decided to accept the suggestion offered by NADS and 
Realtime Technologies that the NHTSA Guidelines should specify the 
field-of-view of the display. We have set the minimum recommended 
field-of-view to have a width of 30 degrees. Of course, wider fields-
of-view may be used.
    NHTSA has also decided to accept the suggestion offered by NADS and 
Realtime Technologies that the NHTSA Guidelines should specify the 
resolution for the simulator in arc minutes per pixel rather than a 
particular screen size and resolution. The supporting research offered 
by Realtime Technologies 258, 259, 260 is quite convincing. 
Therefore, the recommended screen resolution is being set to 3 arc 
minutes per pixel or better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ Stoner, H. A., Fisher, D. L., Mollenhauer, M. A., 
``Simulator and Scenario Factors Influencing Simulator Sickness,'' 
in Fisher, D. L., Rizzo, M., Caird, J. K., and Lee, J. D. (Editors). 
Handbook of Driving Simulation for Engineering, Medicine, and 
Psychology, Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press, 2011.
    \259\ Andersen, G. J., ``Sensor and Perceptual Factors in the 
Design of Driving Simulation Displays,'' in Fisher, D. L., Rizzo, 
M., Caird, J. K., and Lee, J. D. (Editors)., Handbook of Driving 
Simulation for Engineering, Medicine, and Psychology, Boca Raton, 
FL, CRC Press, 2011.
    \260\ Plotkin, S., ``Multiple Causation,'' Automotive 
Engineering and Litigation, 1, pp. 215-228, New York, Garland Law 
Publishing, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA received recommendations from NADS to reduce driver eye point 
to screen distance minimum distance from the 4.7 meters originally 
proposed in the NHTSA Guidelines to either 2.5 meters (NADS) or 3.0 
meters (Realtime Technologies). The original 4.7 meter distance was 
based on nothing more than the driver eye point to screen distance of 
the NHTSA driving simulator located at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and 
Test Center and the perception that this distance provides adequate 
visual accommodation.
    To attempt to determine the minimum driver eye point to screen 
distance in a more scientific manner, depth of field calculations were 
used.
    As previously stated, the roadway display should be far enough in 
front of the simulator's driver that visual accommodation must occur 
when the driver switches his gaze between the device interface and the 
roadway. NHTSA wants the driver's eyes to be focused approximately at 
infinity when looking at the roadway and at the correct, much closer, 
distance when looking at the device display. In terms

[[Page 24873]]

of depth of field, NHTSA translated this into having the ``far'' edge 
of the depth of field at infinity.
    In order to perform a depth of field calculation, we needed values 
for the image focal length of the human eye, the lowest f-stop to be 
used in the calculation, and the permissible circle of confusion. 
According to ``The Physics Factbook'' \261\ article on ``Focal Length 
of a Human Eye'' a good value for the image focal length of the eye is 
22.3 mm. The lowest achievable f-stop is equal to the image focal 
length divided by the maximum eye pupil size. Human eye pupil size data 
was obtained from a paper by Winn, Whitaker, Elliot, and Phillips.\262\ 
According to this, the maximum eye pupil size is approximately 9 mm 
giving a minimum f-stop of 2.4 (rounded down to the nearest 
``standard'' f-stop of f-2 for subsequent calculations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \261\ ``The Physics Factbook,'' edited by Glen Elert--written by 
his students, accessed at: https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/JuliaKhutoretskaya.shtml on July 20, 2012.
    \262\ Winn, B., Whitaker, D., Elliot, D.B., and Phillips, N.J., 
``Factors Affecting Light-Adapted Pupil Size in Normal Human 
Subjects,'' Journal of Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual 
Science, March 1994, Vol. 35, No. 3, accessed at: https://www.iovs.org/content/35/3/1132.full.pdf on July 20, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An acceptable value for circle of confusion was obtained from the 
internet posting ``DOF--Demystifying the Confusion.'' \263\ According 
to this posting, the normal human eye can determine 5 line pairs per 
millimeter at a distance of 25 cm. Therefore, an acceptable circle of 
confusion value is 0.2 mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \263\ Accessed at: https://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/DoF/ on July 20, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Inputting all of this data into a depth of field calculator \264\ a 
hyperfocal distance (the distance beyond which all objects can be 
brought into an acceptable focus) of 1.27 meters was calculated. The 
minimum driver eye point to screen distance determined in this manner 
would be 1.27 meters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \264\ The one used was called DOFMaster and accessed at: https://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html on July 20, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has decided to round this 1.27 meter value up to 2.0 meters. 
This takes NHTSA to the same value that, in their comments, Realtime 
Technologies pointed out had been arrived at by other researchers.\265\ 
Based on the preceding analysis, we believe that having a minimum 
driver eye point to screen distance will provide adequate visual 
accommodation. This change has been incorporated into the NHTSA 
Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ Andersen, G. J., ``Sensor and Perceptual Factors in the 
Design of Driving Simulation Displays,'' in Fisher, D. L., Rizzo, 
M., Caird, J. K., and Lee, J. D. (Editors)., Handbook of Driving 
Simulation for Engineering, Medicine, and Psychology, Boca Raton, 
FL, CRC Press, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Suggestions To Improve the Driving Scenario
a. Summary of Comments
    Several comments were directed at the simulator scenario proposed 
for use in the testing. Specifically, the Swedish Road and Transport 
Research Institute (VTI) asked:

    In general, is the specified scenario difficult enough? \266\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \266\ Comments received from the Swedish National Road Transport 
Institute (VTI), p. 2. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket 
NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Are the results generalizable to more complex traffic 
environments? If not, the test will only show that it is `safe' to 
perform the secondary task on straight road segments with one lead 
vehicle. What happens when the device is used in urban traffic? 
\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \267\ Ibid.

    In contrast, several organizations advocated the use of the 
Alliance driving task. As the basis for this recommendation, Mercedes-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benz provided the following comment:

    The Alliance driving task was designed to mimic the relatively 
benign conditions associated with distraction related crashes based 
on real world data. NHTSA proposes altering this procedure * * * It 
is unclear how the proposed changes to the driving procedure relate 
to real world crash risk.\268\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \268\ Comments received from Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, p. 9. 
Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 0093.

    Several commenters suggested that data collection should include 
curved in addition to straight road segments to ensure that steering 
corrections are required.
    Numerous comments pertaining to scenario details were provided. VTI 
pointed out that the guidelines lack specification of basic geometries, 
including lane width, road markings, and road surface properties 
(color, brightness, grain). They also noted that:

    * * * objects beside the road will influence the driver's 
performance in navigating as these also provide sensation about 
speed and heading as examples.\269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \269\ Comments received from the Swedish National Road Transport 
Institute (VTI), p. 2. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket 
NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0056.

    Several comments asked for more detailed information about the 
proposed car-following task, including more detail about the speed of 
the lead vehicle and its appearance, including size, shape, color, and 
the way in which it appears in the driving scene.
    Additional detail was also requested about the proposed visual 
detection task. The following comment was submitted by the University 
of Iowa:

    Section VI.2.f.i specifies a ``filled-in, red circle'' but does 
not specify the surrounding or background visual features. A red 
circle will be nearly invisible against a dark sky. The guidelines 
would be improved if this specification was expressed as a minimum 
and maximum contrast ratio as used by the Federal Highway 
Administration's Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels for traffic signs 
(FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2003-15149).\270\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \270\ Comments received from the University of Iowa, p. 2. 
Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 0071.

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA has deliberately recommended a very simple driving scenario 
for the Eye Glance Measurement Using a Driving Simulator acceptance 
test protocol--straight line, constant speed driving. This does mimic 
the Alliance Guidelines driving simulator scenario; the Mercedes-Benz 
comment was made about NHTSA's proposed Dynamic Following and Detection 
acceptance test options which, as previously discussed, are not being 
carried forward at this time.
    The very simple driving simulator scenario proposed by NHTSA in the 
Initial Notice was chosen for two reasons:
     Its simplicity should accommodate organizations that only 
have low fidelity, low cost, driving simulators. Not everyone can 
afford to use the extremely high fidelity National Advanced Driving 
Simulator or even higher fidelity, moving base, driving simulators. 
However, since the acceptance test protocol uses a straight line, 
constant speed, drive and all of the criteria used to determine task 
acceptance are based on driver eye glances, we do not believe it is 
necessary to have a high fidelity driving simulator to perform this 
testing. A low-fidelity driving simulator is sufficient.
     Since NHTSA has based its acceptance test criteria on test 
participant performance while performing the reference task (manual 
radio tuning) while driving this simple scenario, the effects of 
scenario difficulty level are expected not to matter. If NHTSA were to 
recommend a more complex scenario, with curving roads and more traffic, 
it might degrade test participant performance while performing a 
candidate task. However, it would also degrade test participant 
performance while performing manual radio tuning, probably by about the 
same amount. Therefore, tasks that meet the current acceptance test 
criteria would probably also meet the

[[Page 24874]]

requirements of an acceptance test protocol that used a more complex 
driving scenario. While NHTSA recognizes that its acceptance test 
scenario is not typical of urban traffic environments, based on the 
above logic, we believe the results to be generalizable to more complex 
traffic environments.
    NHTSA also does not think that segments of the simulated road 
driven during data collection should include curved road segments.\271\ 
While the inclusion of curved road segments would ensure that driver 
steering corrections are required during testing, once again any 
effects are expected to be present during both candidate task 
acceptance testing and the testing used to determine the acceptance 
criteria. Therefore, the effects are expected to cancel each other out. 
Using straight roads during testing has one advantage: it reduces the 
complexity of the needed driving simulator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \271\ NHTSA believes that it is a good idea to include curving 
road segments during non-test portions of the drive that occur 
between the straight segments of simulated road that are used during 
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the comments that were received, NHTSA has added 
recommendations for road environment, road material and color, lane and 
shoulder widths, and road markings to the Recommended Driving Simulator 
Scenario subsection of the NHTSA Guidelines. The road markings portion 
of these recommendations was taken from Section 3A.05, Widths and 
Patterns of Longitudinal Pavement Markings contained in the 
``California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 
Highways: Part 3--Markings.'' \272\ We have also added additional 
recommendations about the lead vehicle appearance and that it suddenly 
appears in the driving scene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \272\ ``California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for 
Streets and Highways: Part 3 (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Edition, as amended 
for use in California)--Markings,'' pp. 3A-2--3A-3, State of 
California, Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Department 
of Transportation, accessed at https://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/pdf/camutcd/CAMUTCD-Part3.pdf on July 10, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the request for additional details about the proposed 
visual detection task is only relevant to NHTSA's proposed Dynamic 
Following and Detection acceptance test options which, as previously 
discussed, are not being carried forward at this time.

I. Test Participant Issues

1. Test Participant Demographics
a. Summary of Comments
    Comments on this topic referred to the age groupings proposed by 
NHTSA. The following comment from Global Automakers suggested that the 
sample composition should better reflect the overall distribution of 
drivers.

    Global Automakers does not believe that specific driver 
populations should be over-weighted or underweighted during subject 
selection, compared to the distribution of the driving population. 
For example, while specific age groups may presently use technology 
at different frequencies, those use patterns may change over time. 
Therefore, we do not support increased representation of younger 
drivers (18 through 24 age range) based on anecdotal indications 
that this group currently uses electronic technology more 
frequently.\273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ Comments received from Global Automakers, p. 6. Accessed 
at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 
0099.

    Mercedes-Benz expressed concern with the practical difficulties of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
adhering to the proposed age/gender requirements:

    The proposed requirement for 24 participants, even mix of 
genders and divided in 4 groups with each 6 human subjects in the 
age range of 18-24, 25-39, 40-54 and 55-75 is extremely aggressive 
and will make filling the subject pool difficult.\274\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \274\ Comments received from Mercedes-Benz, p. 10. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0093.

    Mercedes-Benz also suggested that the sample be composed of 
individuals that reflect the population of drivers most likely to use a 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
technology being tested:

    * * * it can be concluded that the applications or functions to 
be tested should be evaluated by those age groups which are most 
likely to buy the new features.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \275\ Ibid, p. 10.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hyundai provided the following comment:

    Hyundai requests NHTSA provide justification for the sample size 
and demographic requirements. Hyundai proposes the agency change the 
distribution of the participants based on current research.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ Comments received from Hyundai Motor Group, p. 2. Accessed 
at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 
0102.

    They cited two experimental studies to support the following 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
recommendation:

    Hyundai recommends the agency combine the 18-24, and 25-39 age 
group and distribute the participant age groups into three groups of 
8 participants: Young (18-40), Middle (41-64), and Mature (65 and 
older). The proposed age groups will focus on the performance effect 
among the age groups where differences have been seen in previous 
research.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \277\ Ibid, p. 3.

    According to Dr. Paul Green, ``The guidelines do not pay adequate 
attention to elderly drivers.'' \278\ Although Dr. Green agreed with 
NHTSA's assertion that older drivers are less frequent users of 
electronic technology than younger drivers, he adds:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \278\ Comments received from Dr. Paul Green, p. 7. Accessed at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0052.

    * * * they take far longer to complete tasks and have much 
greater difficulty with them, in particular the distracting visual-
manual tasks that are the topic of this docket. Furthermore, over 
time, use by older individuals of all sorts of electronic devices is 
increasing. Therefore, it is recommended that an additional group be 
added to the sample, drivers ages 65 to 75 and equal in size to the 
other groups.\279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \279\ Ibid, p. 7.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following comment was received from GM:

    GM concentrates on a worst-case age group: 45 to 65 years old. 
Subjects in this age bracket generally have greater mean glance 
times and longer total eyes-off-road times than younger subjects. 
Consequently, findings base on this age group are generally more 
conservative.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \280\ Comments received from General Motors LLC, Attachment, p. 
3. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document 
Number 0103.

b. NHTSA's Response
    As the above comments indicate, probably the most controversial 
question about test participant demographics is whether to underweight 
older drivers in the NHTSA Guidelines sampling plan.
    As set forth in the Initial Notice, the NHTSA Guidelines 
recommended that out of each group of 24 test participants used for 
testing, there should be:
     Six test participants 18 through 24 years old, inclusive, 
and
     Six test participants 25 through 39 years old, inclusive, 
and
     Six test participants 40 through 54 years old, inclusive, 
and
     Six test participants 55 or more years old.
    As stated in the Initial Notice, based on 2009 statistics,\281\ the 
percentage of licensed drivers aged 18 years or older contained in each 
of these four groups are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \281\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/dl20.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     11.4 percent are 18 through 24 years old, inclusive, and
     26.8 percent are 25 through 39 years old, inclusive, and
     29.7 percent are 40 through 54 years old, inclusive, and
     32.1 percent are 55 or more years old.
    To have an unweighted sample we would have to have 25 percent of

[[Page 24875]]

licensed drivers aged 18 years or older contained in each of these four 
groups. Therefore, NHTSA's sampling method: over represents drivers 18 
through 24 years old, inclusive; approximately correctly represents 
drivers 25 through 39 years old, inclusive; approximately correctly 
represents drivers 40 through 54 years old, inclusive; and under 
represents drivers 55 or more years old.
    There are two reasons for this. First, drivers in the 18 through 24 
age range have a higher rate of fatalities (per 100,000 drivers in that 
age range \282\ or per 100 million vehicle miles traveled \283\) than 
drivers that are 25 years of age or older. Second, at least 
anecdotally, younger drivers are more frequent users of electronic 
technology than are older drivers. Therefore, NHTSA believes that this 
age range should be overrepresented in each test participant sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \282\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``Traffic 
Safety Facts 2008,'' NHTSA Technical Report DOT HS 811 170, 2010.
    \283\ United States Government Accountability Office, ``Older 
Driver Safety, Knowledge Sharing Should Help States Prepare for 
Increase in Older Driver Population,'' Report to the Special 
Committee on Aging of the United States Senate, GAO-07-413, April 
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 55 years and older age range is underrepresented in test 
samples relative to their numbers in the general driving population. 
While NHTSA considers it important that advanced electronic device 
tasks be tested using drivers in this age range, as mentioned above, 
older drivers are less frequent users of electronic technology than 
younger drivers. Therefore, NHTSA is proposing to underweight this age 
range with six test participants rather than the eight called for by 
their numbers in the general driving population.
    Clearly there were diverse opinions as to the best sampling method 
to use. Global Automakers suggested using an unweighted sample. 
Mercedes-Benz essentially agreed with NHTSA that the sample be composed 
of individuals that reflect the population of drivers most likely to 
use a technology being tested, resulting in an over representation of 
younger test participants. General Motors, Dr. Green, and Hyundai all 
advocated changing to a sampling plan that would over represent, 
instead of under represent, older drivers.
    NHTSA has worked out what the age ranges would be for a test 
participant sampling method that equally represented