Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for Portable and Aftermarket Devices, 87656-87683 [2016-29051]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
87656
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
warning label on the other side of the
sun visor. See 61 FR 60206.
On May 12, 2000, NHTSA refreshed
the content requirements of the air bag
warning labels consistent with its intent
to require labels for vehicles with
advanced air bags. Additionally, in
order to provide consumers with
adequate information about their
occupant restraint system, NHTSA
required manufacturers to provide a
written explanation of the vehicle’s
advanced air bag system in owner’s
manuals. See 65 FR 30722.
NHTSA’s Analysis: Acting as an
alterer,2 Spartan removed and reinstalled sun visors as part of its
modification of the subject vocational
vehicles. The vocational vehicles are
equipped with advanced air bags at the
driver and front passenger seating
positions and had compliant air bag
warning labels pursuant to paragraph
S4.5.1(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 208
permanently affixed to the sun visors,
and visible to vehicle occupants when
the sun visors were stowed prior to
Spartan’s modifications.
The left and right-side sun visors are
nearly identical in size, have identical
attachment points to the headliner and
are interchangeable. Apparently, when
re-installing the sun visors, Spartan
incorrectly placed the left-side visor on
the right-side of the vehicle and viceversa. As a result, the air bag warning
labels are no longer visible to vehicle
occupants when the sun visors are
stowed. Rather, the air bag warning
labels are inverted and only visible to
vehicle occupants when the sun visors
are deployed.
In accordance with paragraph
S4.5.1(c) of FMVSS No.208, if the air
bag warning label is not visible when
the sun visor is in the stowed position,
an additional label (i.e., air bag alert
label) conforming to Figure 6(c) of
FMVSS No. 208 shall be permanently
affixed to the visor and visible when the
visor is in the stowed position. Spartan
failed to affix air bag alert labels to the
sun visors as required.3
NHTSA’s Decision: NHTSA has
concluded that the absence of the air
bag alert labels affixed to sun visors on
subject Spartan vocational vehicles is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
NHTSA agrees that given the nature and
intended use of the subject vocational
vehicles, it would be unlikely for
2 As
defined by 49 CFR 567.3.
the petition, Spartan discussed
noncompliance to paragraph S4.5.1(b)(2) of FMVSS
No. 208 and in their safety recall report, incorrectly
cited paragraph S4.5.1 5(c) of FMVSS No. 208. The
noncompliance resulting from the absence of air bag
alert labels pursuant to paragraph S4.5.1(c) of
FMVSS No. 208 is under review in this petition.
3 In
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
children to be placed in the front
passenger seating area. The subject
vehicles are equipped with OEM
installed advanced airbags that have the
potential to substantially decrease the
risk of injuries and deaths occurring
from deployment. In addition, a written
explanation of the advanced passenger
air bag system is included in the
owner’s manuals.
This petition is granted solely on the
agency’s decision that the
noncompliance in the subject vehicles is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. It is important that all
other vehicles subject to these
requirements continue to meet them.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this
decision only applies to the subject
vehicles that Spartan no longer
controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However,
the granting of this petition does not
relieve vehicle distributors and dealers
of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their
control after Spartan notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8)
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016–29026 Filed 12–2–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0137]
Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver
Distraction Guidelines for Portable and
Aftermarket Devices
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed Federal
guidelines.
AGENCY:
This notice details the
proposed contents of the second phase
of the National Highway Traffic Safety
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Administration’s (NHTSA) Driver
Distraction Guidelines (Phase 2
Guidelines). The purpose of the Phase 2
Guidelines is to provide a safety
framework for developers of portable
and aftermarket electronic devices to
use when developing visual-manual
user interfaces for their systems. The
Guidelines encourage innovative
solutions such as pairing and Driver
Mode that, when implemented, will
reduce the potential for unsafe driver
distraction by limiting the time a
driver’s eyes are off the road, while at
the same time preserving the full
functionality of these devices when they
are not used while driving. Currently no
safety guidelines exist for portable
device technologies when they are used
during a driving task. NHTSA seeks
comments and suggestions to improve
this proposal.
DATES: You should submit your
comments early enough to be received
not later than February 3, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
to the docket number identified in the
heading of this document by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act discussion
below. We will consider all comments
received before the close of business on
the comment closing date indicated
above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the
closing date.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone:
(202) 366–9826.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review the U.S. DOT’s complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000, (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://www.dot.gov/
privacy.html.
Confidential Business Information: If
you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, you
should submit three copies of your
complete submission, including the
information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you
have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket
Management at the address given above.
When you send a comment containing
information claimed to be confidential
business information, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the
information specified in our
confidential business information
regulation (49 CFR part 512).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical issues, you may contact Dr.
Chris Monk, phone: (202) 366–5195, or
chris.monk@dot.gov. Dr. Monk’s mailing
address is: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final
version of the Phase 2 Guidelines will
not have the force and effect of law and
will not be a regulation. Therefore,
NHTSA is not required to provide
notice and an opportunity for comment.
NHTSA is doing so, however, to ensure
that the final Phase 2 Guidelines benefit
from the input of all knowledgeable and
interested members of the public.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. The Driver Distraction Safety Problem
B. What is driver distraction?
C. NHTSA’s Efforts To Reduce Driver
Distraction
D. The Proposed NHTSA Guidelines for
Portable and Aftermarket Devices
E. Major Differences Between the Proposed
Phase 2 and Phase 1 NHTSA Guidelines
F. Phase 2 Outreach Efforts
II. Background
A. Overview
B. Definition and Scope of Driver
Distraction
C. Prevalence of Portable Device Use While
Driving
D. Driver Distraction Safety Problem
E. Driver Distraction and Portable Devices
1. Crash Data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
2. Crash Risk Associated With Portable
Device Use
F. Overview of Efforts To Combat Driver
Distraction
G. Efforts by States To Address Distracted
Driving Involving the Use of Portable
Devices
H. Education and Public Awareness Efforts
1. Government Programs and Efforts
2. Industry Programs and Efforts
I. Design Guideline Efforts
1. NHTSA’s Phase 1 Visual-Manual Driver
Distraction Guidelines
2. Efforts by Industry To Address Driver
Distraction From Portable Devices
3. Public Meeting on the Phase 2
Distraction Guidelines
III. Distraction Guidelines for Portable and
Aftermarket Devices
A. Scope
1. Devices/Device Interfaces
2. Tasks
B. Overview of the Phase 2 Guidelines
C. Pairing
1. Pairing Recommendations
2. Privacy and Data Sharing for Paired
Devices
3. Cybersecurity for Paired Devices
D. Driver Mode
1. Driver Mode Recommendations
2. Driver Mode Activation
E. Aftermarket Devices
IV. Expected Effects of the Phase 2
Guidelines
A. Estimated Time for Conformance
B. NHTSA Monitoring of Portable and
Aftermarket Conformance With the
Guidelines
V. Authority To Issue the Phase 2 Guidelines
VI. Public Participation
VII. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)
I. Executive Summary
A. The Driver Distraction Safety
Problem
In 2015,1 10 percent of the 35,092
traffic fatalities involved one or more
distracted drivers, and these distractionaffected crashes resulted in 3,477
fatalities, an 8.8 percent increase from
the 3,197 fatalities in 2014.2 Of the 5.6
million non-fatal, police-reported
crashes in 2014 (the most recent year for
which detailed distraction-affected
crash data is available), 16 percent were
distraction-affected crashes, and
resulted in 424,000 people injured.
The crash data indicate that visualmanual interaction (an action that
requires a user to look away from the
roadway and manipulate a button or
1 NHTSA.
(2016). Traffic Safety Facts Research
Note: 2015 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview (DOT
HS 812 318). Available at https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
ViewPublication/812318 (last accessed on 10/4/16).
2 NHTSA. (2016). Traffic Safety Facts Research
Note: Distracted Driving 2014 (DOT HS 812 260)
(hereinafter ‘‘Traffic Safety Facts Research Note:
Distracted Driving 2014’’). Available at https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
ViewPublication/812260 (last accessed on 10/4/16).
2014 data are the most recent data available.
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
87657
interface) with portable devices,
particularly cell phones, is often the
main distraction for drivers involved in
crashes. In 2014, there were 385 fatal
crashes that involved the use 3 of a cell
phone, resulting in 404 fatalities. These
crashes represent 13 percent of the
distraction-affected fatal crashes or 1.3
percent of all fatal crashes.4 The data
also indicate that there were a number
of fatal crashes that involved the use of
a device or object brought into the
vehicle (some of which may also have
been crashes that involved the use of a
cell phone). This catch-all category
includes crashes that involved the use
of portable devices, such as navigation
devices, in addition to other types of
objects (e.g., cigarette lighters). Of the
967,000 distraction-affected crashes in
2014, 7 percent (or 1.1 percent of all
crashes) involved the use of cell phones
and resulted in 33,000 people injured.5
B. What is driver distraction?
Driver distraction is a specific type of
inattention that occurs when drivers
divert their attention away from the
driving task to focus on another activity.
This distraction can come from
electronic devices, such as texting or
emailing on cell phones or smartphones,
and more traditional activities such as
interacting with passengers, eating, or
events external to the vehicle. Driver
distraction can affect drivers in different
ways, and can be broadly categorized
into the following types:
• Visual distraction: Tasks that
require the driver to look away from the
roadway to visually obtain information;
• Manual distraction: Tasks that
require the driver to take one or both
hands off the steering wheel to
manipulate a control, device, or other
non-driving-related item;
• Cognitive distraction: Tasks that
require the driver to avert their mental
attention away from the driving task.
Tasks can involve one, two, or all
three of these distraction types.
NHTSA is aware of the effect that
these types of distraction can have on
driving safety, particularly visualmanual distraction. At any given time,
an estimated 542,073 drivers are using
hand-held cell phones while driving.6
3 Use of a cell phone includes talking on or
listening to a cell phone, dialing or texting on a cell
phone, and other cell-phone-related activities.
4 Other types of distraction-affected crashes
include those caused by daydreaming, eating or
drinking, smoking, and conversing with a
passenger. See NHTSA. (2016). Traffic Safety Facts
Research Note: Distracted Driving 2014.
5 Id.
6 NHTSA. (2016). Traffic Safety Facts Research
Note: Driver Electronic Device Use in 2015. (DOT
HS 812 326). Available at https://
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
Continued
05DEN1
87658
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
Moreover, when sending or receiving a
text message with a hand-held phone,
the total time that a driver’s eyes are
focused off the road is 23 seconds on
average.7 This means while traveling at
55 mph, a driver’s eyes are off the road
for more than a third of a mile for every
text message sent or received.
C. NHTSA’s Efforts To Reduce Driver
Distraction
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
As an agency committed to reducing
deaths, injuries, and economic losses
resulting from motor vehicle crashes,
NHTSA has initiated, and continues to
work toward eliminating crashes
attributable to driver distraction. Most
prominently, NHTSA and the United
States Department of Transportation (US
DOT) have encouraged efforts by states
and other local authorities to pass laws
prohibiting hand-held use of portable
devices while driving. NHTSA, in
conjunction with industry, local
governments, and various public
interest groups, has also taken
numerous steps to educate the public
about the dangers of distracted driving.
However, until distracted driving is
eliminated, the agency must work in the
real-world where many drivers continue
to use their portable devices and other
in-vehicle systems in unsafe ways while
driving. Thus, NHTSA has also worked
on how to mitigate the distraction that
may be caused by these new
technologies. In April 2010, NHTSA
called for the development of voluntary
guidelines addressing driver distraction
caused by in-vehicle systems and
portable devices.8 This sentiment was
reinforced by the US DOT’s and
NHTSA’s June 2012 ‘‘Blueprint for
Ending Distracted Driving.’’ 9 The
blueprint is a comprehensive approach
to the distraction problem. The three
steps outlined in the blueprint include:
Enacting and enforcing tough state laws
on distracted driving, addressing
technology, and better educating young
drivers. All three components are
necessary to address the distraction
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
ViewPublication/812326 (last accessed on 10/4/16).
7 Fitch, G., et al. (2013). The Impact of Hand-Held
and Hands-Free Cell Phone Use on Driving
Performance and Safety-Critical Event Risk (DOT
HS 811 757). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
8 NHTSA. (2010). Overview of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Driver
Distraction Program (DOT HS 811 299). Available
at https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_
driving/pdf/811299.pdf (last accessed on 10/4/16).
9 NHTSA. (2012). Blueprint for Ending Distracted
Driving (DOT HS 811 629). Available at: https://
www.distraction.gov/downloads/pdfs/blueprint-forending-distracted-driving.pdf (last accessed on
10/4/16).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
issue. The Distraction Guidelines focus
on step two by addressing technology.
The development of non-binding,
voluntary guidelines for in-vehicle and
portable devices is being implemented
in three phases. The Phase 1 Driver
Distraction Guidelines (Phase 1
Guidelines), released in 2013, cover
visual-manual interfaces of electronic
devices installed in vehicles as original
equipment (OE).10 The Phase 2 Driver
Distraction Guidelines (Phase 2
Guidelines), which are the subject of
this notice, would apply to visualmanual interfaces of portable and
aftermarket devices.
While NHTSA is proposing the Phase
2 Guidelines, it is important to note that
the agency continues to support state
efforts to prohibit hand-held use of
portable devices while driving. In
proposing the Phase 2 Guidelines,
NHTSA stresses that it does not
encourage the hand-held use of portable
devices while driving. While NHTSA
acknowledges that there are many
available technology solutions, state
laws, and consumer information
campaigns designed to help reduce
distracted driving, the agency believes
that an important way to help mitigate
the real-world risk posed by driver
distraction from portable devices is for
these devices to have limited
functionality and simplified interfaces
when they are used by drivers while
driving. This is especially true because
some of these devices are intended to be
used while driving and others have
applications that are clearly meant to be
used by drivers to complete the driving
task. These Guidelines are, therefore,
intended to reduce the potential
distraction associated with hand-held
portable and aftermarket device use
while driving. The agency believes these
Guidelines will provide a framework for
portable device and application
developers to take into account realworld device use by consumers when
driving. In addition, the agency notes
that applications that are meant to be
used by drivers while driving are likely
to continue to be developed and made
available.
While these Guidelines help
manufacturers develop portable and
aftermarket devices while keeping safe
driving in mind, it remains the driver’s
responsibility to ensure the safe
operation of the vehicle and to comply
with all state traffic laws. This includes,
but is not limited to laws that ban
texting and/or the use of hand-held
10 78 FR 24817 (Apr. 26, 2013). Available at
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/04/
26/2013-09883/visual-manual-nhtsa-driverdistraction-guidelines-for-in-vehicle-electronicdevices (last accessed on 10/4/16).
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
devices while driving. NHTSA and the
US DOT support and will continue to
support State and Federal efforts to
combat distracted driving.
D. The Proposed NHTSA Guidelines for
Portable and Aftermarket Devices
This notice announces the proposed
Phase 2 Guidelines for Portable and
Aftermarket Devices. The Phase 1
Guidelines for OE in-vehicle interfaces,
discussed in detail below, provide the
foundation for the proposed Phase 2
Guidelines. Phase 1 provided specific
recommendations for minimizing the
distraction potential from OE in-vehicle
interfaces that involve visual-manual
interaction. Particularly, the Phase 1
Guidelines are focused on
recommending acceptance criteria for
driver glance behavior where single
average glances away from the forward
roadway are 2 seconds or less and
where the sum of the durations of all
individual glances away from the
forward roadway are 12 seconds or less
while performing a testable task, such as
selecting a song from a satellite radio
station.
To the extent practicable, the Phase 2
Guidelines apply the Phase 1
recommendations to the visual-manual
interfaces of portable devices (e.g.,
smartphones, tablets, and navigation
devices) and aftermarket devices (i.e.,
devices installed in the vehicle after
manufacture). Because there are both
similarities and differences between OE
interfaces and portable devices, the
Phase 2 Guidelines primarily focus on
portable devices. Due to the functional
similarities between aftermarket devices
and OE systems, the Phase 2 Guidelines
direct manufacturers to the Phase 1
Guidelines.
The proposed Phase 2 Guidelines
present two concurrent approaches for
mitigating distraction associated with
the use of portable and aftermarket
devices by drivers. First, the proposed
Guidelines recommend that portable
and OE in-vehicle systems be designed
so that they can be easily paired to each
other and operated through the OE invehicle interface. Assuming that the OE
in-vehicle interface conforms to the
Phase 1 Guidelines, pairing would
ensure that the tasks performed by the
driver while driving meet the timebased, eye-glance task acceptance
criteria specified in the Phase 1
Guidelines. Pairing would also ensure
that certain activities that would
inherently interfere with the driver’s
ability to safely control the vehicle
would be locked out while driving (i.e.,
the ‘‘per se lock outs’’ referred to in the
Phase 1 Guidelines). Those per se lock
outs include:
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
• 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, textbased advertising and marketing, or
text-based messages.
NHTSA encourages all entities
involved with the engineering and
design of pairing technologies to jointly
develop compatible and efficient
processes that focus on improving the
usability and ease of connecting a
driver’s portable device with their invehicle system.
The second approach recommended
by the proposed Phase 2 Guidelines is
that portable devices that do not already
meet the NHTSA glance and per se lock
out criteria when being used by a driver
should include a Driver Mode that is
developed by industry stakeholders (i.e.,
Operating System or handset makers).
The Driver Mode should present an
interface to the driver that conforms
with the Phase 1 Guidelines and, in
particular, locks out tasks that do not
meet Phase 1 task acceptance criteria or
are among the per se lock outs listed
above. The purpose of Driver Mode is to
provide a simplified interface when the
device is being used unpaired while
driving, either because pairing is
unavailable or the driver decides not to
pair. The Guidelines recommend two
methods of activating Driver Mode
depending on available technology. The
first option, and the one encouraged by
the agency, is to automatically activate
the portable device’s Driver Mode when:
(1) The device is not paired with the invehicle system, and (2) the device, by
itself, or in conjunction with the vehicle
in which it is being used, distinguishes
that it is being used by a driver who is
driving. The driver mode does not
activate when the device is being used
by a non-driver, e.g., passenger.11
NHTSA has learned that technologies
to detect whether a driver or passenger
is using a device have been developed
but are currently being refined such that
11 For purposes of this notice, ‘‘passenger’’ is a
subset of ‘‘non-driver.’’ Non-drivers include not
only personal vehicle passengers, but also people
riding mass transit, bicycling, and the like. When
referring to the specific type of vehicles this
guidance is aimed at—light vehicles—the notice
will often refer to those occupants as drivers and
passengers and the technology that distinguishes
between drivers and passengers in light vehicles as
driver-passenger distinction technology.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
they can reliably detect whether the
device user is the driver or a passenger
and are not overly annoying and
impractical.12 Accordingly, the agency
is proposing a second means of
activation—manual activation of Driver
Mode—meaning that Driver Mode is
activated manually by the user. The
agency foresees this being a temporary
option in the Phase 2 Guidelines until
driver-passenger distinction technology
is more mature, refined, and widely
available. The agency is optimistic such
technology can be implemented as soon
as practicable.
Additionally, the Phase 2 Guidelines
include recommendations for
aftermarket devices—those devices that
are intended to be permanently installed
in the vehicle, which were not
addressed in Phase 1. The proposed
Phase 2 Guidelines suggest that
aftermarket devices meet the same task
acceptance criteria and other relevant
recommendations as specified for OE
interfaces in Phase 1.
Due to the close relationship between
the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Guidelines, the
agency is considering combining the
two phases into a single document
when the Phase 2 Guidelines are
finalized. The agency requests comment
on whether a single combined
document would be easier for industry
to use and the public at large to
reference, or whether separate
documents would be simpler.
Because these proposed 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 welcomes comments on the
potential benefits and costs that would
result from voluntary compliance with
the Guidelines.
E. Major Differences Between the
Proposed Phase 2 and Phase 1 NHTSA
Guidelines
The Phase 1 Guidelines recommend
that interfaces and tasks determined to
be more distracting than a specified
level should not be accessible to the
user while the user is driving. Similarly,
conformance with the proposed Phase 2
Guidelines would result in drivers
interacting with their paired portable
devices through Phase 1-conforming OE,
built-in interfaces. In many cases, it is
up to the driver to pair his or her device
with the vehicle’s interface or, as in the
case with many older vehicles, the
vehicle does not have the capability to
pair with a portable device, so the Phase
12 For
further discussion of driver-passenger
distinction technologies, see infra Section I.3.
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
87659
2 Guidelines also recommend that the
portable device be put in Driver Mode
for use while driving instead of the
portable device’s default interface.
There are several distinctions between
portable devices and in-vehicles
systems that result in different
considerations between the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 Guidelines. The first distinction
is that many portable devices are
designed with the intent of being used
in a variety of contexts that may or may
not include driving, whereas OE invehicle interfaces are designed
specifically for use while driving
(unless specific functions are
inaccessible when the vehicle is in
motion). As a result, it is important that
the Phase 2 Guidelines account for the
need to reliably identify when a
portable device is in fact being used by
the driver of a moving vehicle.
A second distinction between
portable devices and in-vehicle systems
is that the portable devices may be used
by other vehicle occupants in locations
where the driver cannot see or access
the device, e.g., by a passenger in the
back seat. In contrast, all of the
interaction with the OE in-vehicle
interface occurs in the vehicle, and the
location of the interface (and whether
the driver can access it) is known to the
vehicle manufacturer when the interface
is designed and installed.13 These
differences between the portable device
and OE in-vehicle interface can be
overcome with technological solutions,
as described in greater detail below,
potentially allowing for a Driver Mode
that activates when the portable device
is used by a driver while driving. This
would allow for the device to be used
in its full capacity in non-driving
situations. Therefore, NHTSA
encourages the development and
implementation of technologies that can
distinguish between drivers and
passengers.
A third distinction between portable
devices and in-vehicle systems is that,
if not paired with the in-vehicle system,
portable devices can be placed and/or
mounted in a variety of different
locations in the vehicle. There is also
variability in the placement of an
aftermarket device—although to a lesser
extent than for portable devices, since
aftermarket devices are confined to the
available locations on the vehicle, such
as inside the center stack or on top of
the dashboard. NHTSA has elected not
to include recommendations concerning
whether or where a portable device
should be mounted in this proposed set
13 The Phase 1 Guidelines explicitly exclude OE
in-vehicle devices that cannot reasonably be
reached or seen by the driver.
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
87660
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
of guidelines, but we seek comment on
whether we should include them at a
later date and whether there are already
other entities/programs that provide
advice on where to mount devices
safely.
A fourth distinction is that the userinterface experience with portable
devices can be different from built-in
and installed aftermarket systems due to
a wide range of device characteristics
(e.g., smaller screens on portable
devices). In addition, users often use
their thumbs to interact with
touchscreens on hand-held portable
devices, whereas the index finger is
more commonly used with built-in and
installed aftermarket systems. While
these differences in device
characteristics may affect a driver’s
interaction with the device, NHTSA
believes it is unnecessary to address
design issues at the characteristic level
for the Phase 2 Guidelines, because,
regardless of their specific features,
portable devices will be used while
within reach of the driver and viewed
at a downward viewing angle. Rather,
NHTSA maintains its focus on the Phase
1 test procedures and acceptance
criteria in Phase 2 for paired and
unpaired portable devices, as well as
installed aftermarket devices.
The variability of potential locations
for portable and aftermarket devices has
implications for testing procedures to
determine conformance with our
recommendations concerning Driver
Mode. Specifically, the proposed Phase
2 Guidelines’ test procedure for when
the device is in Driver Mode includes
recommendations about the placement
of the portable electronic devices during
testing. In order to address the issues
mentioned above regarding the
variability of the portable device’s
location and driver’s access to its
screen, the proposed test procedure
recommends that unpaired portable
devices be tested in a mounted location
that is easy for the driver to reach and
is based on driver viewing angle
specified in Phase 1. NHTSA has
included a general recommended testing
location for unpaired portable devices
but seeks comment on whether a
location could be specified that would
not result in infinite possibilities or be
too particular to any one device or
vehicle.
For aftermarket devices that are
intended to be permanently installed in
the vehicle, the proposed test procedure
recommends that they be tested in the
installation location prescribed by the
device manufacturer.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
F. Phase 2 Outreach Efforts
NHTSA is committed to reducing
deaths and injuries resulting from motor
vehicle crashes from distraction by
encouraging the development of devices
that can be safer if used while driving.
As part of the ongoing process of
harmonizing with industry standards
and practices, NHTSA hosted a public
meeting on March 12, 2014, to bring
together vehicle manufacturers and
suppliers, portable and aftermarket
device manufacturers, portable and
aftermarket device operating system
providers, cellular service providers,
industry associations, application
developers, researchers, and consumer
groups to discuss technical issues
regarding the agency’s development of
the Phase 2 Driver Distraction
Guidelines for portable and aftermarket
devices. NHTSA held the public
meeting to ensure the stakeholders’
interests were communicated and
considered in the development of the
Phase 2 Guidelines. NHTSA has met
with portable and aftermarket device
manufacturers through the Consumer
Technology Association (CTA) 14
working group as well as individual
meetings as part of an ongoing effort to
enhance the cooperation and
coordination of the Distraction
Guidelines. Likewise, NHTSA
participated in U.S. Senator John (Jay)
D. Rockefeller’s ‘‘Over-Connected and
Behind the Wheel: A Summit on
Technological Solutions to Distracted
Driving’’ on February 6, 2014. Sen.
Rockefeller, chair of the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, hosted the summit to
address potential technological
solutions for minimizing driver
distraction. NHTSA has also met with
majority and minority staff members
from several House and Senate
Committees, including the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, the
House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, the House Appropriations
Committee, the Senate Commerce
Committee, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee, in July 2014
to provide background on the Phase 2
Guidelines and answer questions.
II. Background
A. Overview
Driver distraction is a safety problem
in the United States. The latest crash
14 Following NHTSA’s Phase 2 Guidelines public
meeting but before the issuance of this notice, the
Consumer Electronics Association changed its name
to the Consumer Technology Association. This
notice will refer to that entity as the Consumer
Technology Association or CTA unless the name is
used in a publication title or citation.
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and fatality data implicate driver
distraction in 10 percent of fatal crashes,
18 percent of injury crashes, and 16
percent of all motor vehicle traffic
crashes in 2014.15 The 2014 data show
that cell phones were directly linked to
385 fatal crashes (resulting in 404
fatalities), which is 13 percent of all
distraction affected crashes and 1.3
percent of all fatal crashes.16 The
following sections outline the definition
of driver distraction, the prevalence of
portable device use in motor vehicles,
and the crash and crash risk data
associated with distraction from all
devices in general and portable device
use specifically. This section also
outlines the various efforts from the US
DOT, industry, and safety advocates to
combat the distraction problem. These
efforts include improving our
understanding of the distraction
problem, the implementation of
legislation and enforcement approaches,
driver education and public awareness
campaigns, and guidelines for industry
to develop less distracting devices and
driver-vehicle interfaces.
B. Definition and Scope of Driver
Distraction
Driver distraction 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/smartphones, and from
more conventional activities, such as
viewing 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 broadly categorized into the
following types:
• Visual distraction: Tasks that
require the driver to look away from the
roadway to visually obtain information;
• Manual distraction: Tasks that
require the driver to take one or both
hands off the steering wheel to
manipulate a control, device, or other
non-driving-related item;
• Cognitive distraction: Tasks that
require the driver to avert their mental
attention away from the driving task.
Any given task can involve one, two,
or all three of these types of distraction.
NHTSA is aware of the effect that these
types of distraction can have on driving
15 Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Distracted
Driving 2014.
16 Because of the way crash data is reported and
collected, there are limitations on how distractionaffected crashes, including those involving cell
phone use, are represented. For an explanation of
potential reasons for underreporting, please see
Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Distracted
Driving 2014 at 5–6.
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
safety, particularly visual-manual
distraction.
The impact of distraction on driving
is determined from multiple criteria, the
type and level of distraction, and the
frequency and duration of task
performance. 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.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
C. Prevalence of Portable Device Use
While Driving
NHTSA is concerned about the role of
portable electronic devices in distracted
driving crashes. NHTSA has been
monitoring drivers’ use of portable
devices through its National Occupant
Protection Use Survey (NOPUS),17
which involves the direct observation of
driver electronic device use at
probabilistically-sampled intersections.
The most recent available NOPUS data
from 2015 showed that 2.2 percent of
drivers were observed manipulating
hand-held devices, 3.8 percent of
drivers were observed holding cell
phones to their ears while driving, and
0.6 percent of drivers were observed
speaking into visible headsets while
driving. Notably, the percentage of
drivers visibly manipulating hand-held
devices has nearly quadrupled from 0.6
percent in 2009 to 2.2 percent in 2015,
whereas the percentage of drivers
holding cell phones decreased from 5
percent in 2009 to 3.8 percent in 2015.
The percentage of drivers speaking into
visible headsets has fluctuated from 0.6
percent in 2009, to as high as 0.9
percent in 2010, and as low as 0.4
percent in 2014.
Surveys of drivers indicate even
higher rates of portable device use while
driving. According to a 2012 survey
published by NHTSA,18 14 percent of
drivers reported reading text messages
and email while driving at least some of
the time, and 10 percent of drivers
reported sending text or email messages
while driving at least some of the time.
In addition, almost half of drivers
reported answering their cell phone
when driving at least some of the time,
and more than half of drivers who
reported answering their phones while
driving said they will continue to drive
17 NHTSA. (2016). Traffic Safety Facts Research
Note: Driver Electronic Device Use in 2015(DOT HS
812 326). Available at https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
ViewPublication/812326 (last accessed on 10/4/16).
18 Schroeder, P., Meyers, M., & Kostyniuk, L.
(2013). National Survey on Distracted Driving
Attitudes and Behaviors—2012 (DOT HS 811 729).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
while talking on the phone. The survey
further indicated that almost a quarter of
drivers reported that they are at least
sometimes willing to make a cell phone
call while driving. As will be seen, these
visual-manual distraction activities are
associated with increased crash and
near-crash risk.
NHTSA’s 2013 Cell Phone
Naturalistic Driving Study 19 found that
28 percent of the calls and 10 percent
of the text messages in the participant
cell phone records overlapped with
periods of driving. In terms of visualmanual task duration while interacting
with the cell phone, dialing on a handheld cell phone lasted 12.4 seconds (s),
on average, while pushing a button to
begin a hands-free cell phone call
(either with an aftermarket ‘‘portable’’
hands-free device or with a OE built-in,
hands-free connection) took
significantly less time (averages were
2.9 s and 4.6 s, respectively). Texting
interactions lasted 36.4 s, on average
(Min = 0.3 s, Max = 450.1 s), while
driving at speeds above 8 km/h
(approximately 5 mph). The study also
assessed call duration as a function of
hand-held, portable hands-free (e.g.,
aftermarket headset), and integrated
hands-free (e.g., wireless connection to
vehicle system). When driving at speeds
above 8 km/h (approximately 5 mph),
drivers talked longer on portable handsfree cell phones (4.96 min on average)
than on integrated hands-free cell
phones (3.78 minutes on average) or
hand-held cell phones (3.00 min on
average). However, the study found no
differences in the number of text
messages made per minute as a function
of hand-held, portable hands-free, and
integrated hands-free cell phones.
In a more recent survey by the AAA
Foundation for Traffic Safety,20 which
focused on driving habits during the 30
days prior to the survey, 34.7 percent of
drivers reported reading a text or email
messages while driving, and 25.8
percent of drivers reported typing or
sending text or email messages while
driving. Additionally, 67.1 percent of
drivers reported talking on a cell phone
(of any kind, including while using a
wireless connection and speaker phone)
while driving during this period. These
data show that many drivers continue to
19 Fitch, G., et al. (2013). The Impact of HandHeld and Hands-Free Cell Phone Use on Driving
Performance and Safety-Critical Event Risk (DOT
HS 811 757). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
20 Hamilton, B., Arnold, L., & Tefft, B. (2013).
Distracted Driving and Perceptions of Hands-Free
Technologies, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety,
Available at https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/
default/files/
2013%20TSCI%20Cognitive%20Distraction.pdf
(last accessed on 10/4/16).
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
87661
engage in visual- manual distraction
activities with their portable devices
while driving. This is concerning
because research by NHTSA and others
suggests that visual-manual
manipulation of devices while driving
dramatically increases crash risk.
The portable device market generally
consists of portable devices including
smartphones, tablets, navigation
devices, and portable music players
(e.g., mp3 players). The aftermarket
device market generally consists of
products that are installed in a vehicle
after its initial purchase, such as car
stereos and navigation systems. Access
to content (such as music and podcasts)
has greatly increased over recent years,
as have the capabilities of these devices
and the public’s desire to stay
connected through them while driving.
Accordingly, the scope of stakeholders
has grown to include automotive OE
manufacturers, handset (e.g.,
smartphone) manufacturers, application
(app) developers, wireless carriers, and
software operating system providers.
Through various meetings with these
wide-ranging stakeholders, NHTSA
recognizes the complexity of this
stakeholder ‘‘ecosystem’’ and that
distraction guidelines are currently not
available for designing portable device
user interfaces for safe use while
driving. As a result, the Distraction
Guidelines will provide a uniform safety
framework for these stakeholders when
integrating or developing their products
for driving use.
D. Driver Distraction Safety Problem
The significant safety impact of
distracted driving is evident from
NHTSA’s crash data, which comes from
the Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS) 21 and the National Automotive
Sampling System (NASS) General
Estimates System (GES).22 In 2014,23 10
percent of all fatal crashes involved one
or more distracted drivers,24 and these
distraction-affected crashes 25 resulted
21 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.
22 NASS GES contains data from a nationallyrepresentative 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.
23 Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Distracted
Driving 2014.
24 3,000 distracted drivers were involved in these
fatal crashes.
25 A distraction-affected crash is any crash in
which a driver was identified as distracted at the
time of the crash.
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
87662
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
in 3,197 fatalities.26 This number
increased 8.8 percent to 3,477 fatalities
in 2015.27 Of the 6 million non-fatal,
police-reported crashes in 2014, 16
percent (967,000) were distractionaffected crashes and resulted in 431,000
people injured. Tables 1 and 2 quantify
the effects of distraction on fatal crashes
from 2010 to 2014 28 and non-fatal
crashes from 2007 through 2014.29
These data show that distractionaffected fatalities and crashes continue
to be a concern, and that NHTSA’s
ongoing efforts to address driver
distraction from multiple approaches,
including through its Guidelines, are
warranted.
TABLE 1—FATAL CRASHES INVOLVING DISTRACTION, 2010–2014 23
[FARS]
Fatal crashes
Year
Overall
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
30,296
29,867
31,006
30,203
29,989
Fatalities
Distractionaffected
(% of total
crashes)
2,993
3,047
3,098
2,910
2,955
Overall
(10%)
(10%)
(10%)
(10%)
(10%)
32,885
32,367
33,782
32,894
32,675
Drivers involved in distractionaffected crashes?
In distractionaffected
crashes
(% of total
fatalities)
Overall
3,092 (9%)
3,331 (10%)
3,328 (10%)
3,154 (10%)
3,179 (10%)
44,440
43,668
45,337
44,574
44,583
Distracted
drivers
(% of total
drivers)
2,912
3,085
3,119
2,959
3,000
(7%)
(7%)
(7%)
(7%)
(7%)
TABLE 2—NON-FATAL POLICE REPORTED CRASHES INVOLVING DISTRACTION, 2007–2014 23
[GES]
Non-fatal crashes
Distractionaffected
(% of total
crashes)
Year
Overall
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
People injured
5,986,000
5,776,000
5,474,000
5,389,000
5,308,000
5,584,000
5,657,000
6,035,000
998,000
964,000
954,000
897,000
823,000
905,000
901,000
964,000
(17%)
(17%)
(17%)
(17%)
(15%)
(16%)
(16%)
(16%)
Overall
2,491,000
2,346,000
2,217,000
2,239,000
2,217,000
2,362,000
2,313,000
2,338,000
In distractionaffected
crashes
(% of total
injured)
448,000
466,000
448,000
416,000
387,000
421,000
424,000
431,000
(18%)
(20%)
(20%)
(19%)
(17%)
(18%)
(18%)
(18%)
Cell phone
use
(% of people
injured in
distractionaffected
crashes)
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
24,000 (6%)
21,000 (5%)
28,000 (7%)
34,000 (8%)
33,000 (8%)
The crash data indicate that the use of
portable and aftermarket devices,
particularly cell phones, is often a
leading distraction for drivers involved
in crashes (note that smartphones
reached significant market presence
beginning in 2007). In 2014, there were
385 fatal crashes that involved the use
of a cell phone, though it is possible that
this is an underestimate due to the
difficult nature in relating cell phone
use to crashes at the crash scene. These
cell phone fatal crashes represented 13
percent of the total distraction-affected
fatal crashes. The data also indicate that
there were 75 distraction-affected fatal
crashes in 2014 that involved the driver
using or reaching for a device or object
brought into the vehicle. This catch-all
category of fatal distraction crashes
includes crashes that involved the use
of portable devices such as navigation
devices in addition to other types of
objects (e.g., pocket cigarette lighters).
Of the 967,000 distraction-affected
crashes in 2014, 8 percent (69,000
crashes) involved the use of cell phones,
resulting in 33,000 people injured. The
tables below quantify the effects of cell
phone or other device use on fatal
crashes from 2010 through 2014 and
non-fatal crashes that involved the use
of cell phones or other devices from
2007 through 2014.30 As with Tables 1
and 2, these data show that cell phoneaffected fatalities and crashes continue
to pose a risk to motor vehicle safety.
26 10 percent of all crash fatalities (32,675
fatalities overall in 2014).
27 NHTSA. (2016). Traffic Safety Facts Research
Note: 2015 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview (DOT
HS 812 318). Available at https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
ViewPublication/812318 (last accessed on 10/4/16).
28 Because of changes made in 2010 to the coding
of distracted driving in FARS, distraction-affected
crash data from FARS for 2010 through 2014 cannot
be compared to distracted-driving-related data from
FARS from previous years.
29 The coding of distracted driving in FARS and
NASS GES was unified beginning in 2010.
Although this resulted in a coding change for FARS,
NASS GES coding did not change. Accordingly,
NASS GES data from 2007 through 2014 can be
compared.
30 Identification of specific distractions 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 ‘‘distraction/inattention, details unknown.’’
Some portion of these crashes could have involved
a portable or aftermarket device.
E. Driver Distraction and Portable
Devices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
1. Crash Data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
87663
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
TABLE 3—FATAL CRASHES INVOLVING THE USE OF CELL PHONES 31 32 33 34 35 2010–2014
[FARS]
Distraction-affected fatal crashes involving the use of a cell phone
% of
distractionaffected
crashes
Year
Crashes
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
366
354
378
411
385
% of Fatalities
in distractionaffected
crashes
Fatalities
12
12
12
14
13
408
385
415
455
404
Fatal crashes
involving use
of a device/
object brought
into vehicle
other than a
cell phone
13
12
12
14
13
70
53
66
70
75
* The attributes ‘‘Use of a Cell Phone’’ and ‘‘Use of or Reaching for Device/Object Brought into Vehicle’’ are not mutually exclusive and crashes may involve one or both of these attributes.
TABLE 4—NON-FATAL POLICE REPORTED CRASHES INVOLVING DISTRACTION 31 34 2007–2014
[GES]
Distraction-affected non-fatal crashes involving
the use of a cell phone
Year
Crashes
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
% of Distraction-affected
crashes
49,000
49,000
46,000
47,000
50,000
60,000
71,000
36 69,000
5
5
5
5
6
7
8
7
People injured
% of People
injured in
distractionaffected
crashes
24,000
29,000
24,000
24,000
21,000
28,000
34,000
33,000
5
6
5
6
5
7
8
8
The majority of crash risk data related
to portable devices has focused on cell
phones. However, it is important to note
that cell phones have evolved from a
portable hand-held phone designed
specifically for voice calls to a device
that can be used for various forms of
communication, entertainment, and
access to content. Examples include
applications developed for messaging,
photo-sharing, gaming, social
networking, navigation, and other
location-based services. While these
features are not intended to be used
while driving, they remain just as
accessible to the driver in driving
situations as any other feature on a
smartphone. Whether on smartphones,
tablet computers, or other portable
electronic devices, access to more
content can lead to more visual-manual
distraction, which the studies
summarized below consistently show is
associated with higher levels of crash
and near-crash risk, and decreased
driving performance.
The agency’s distraction focus has
been on research and test procedures
that measure aspects of driver
performance having the strongest
connection to crash risk. As described
below, interactions with a distraction
task that require visual attention (i.e.,
eyes-off-road time) and manual
operations (e.g., button presses)
consistently show association with
increased crash and near-crash risk in
naturalistic driving studies and
decreased driving performance in
simulator and test-track studies. The
research summarized below provides a
brief overview of the distraction safety
problem as manifested in crashes and
the relationship between visual-manual
distraction and crash risk. There are also
many simulator and test-track studies
that show the negative effects of
distracted driving have on driving
performance that are not included in the
summary below.37
A key component of the NHTSA
distraction plan is to understand the
crash risk of drivers using a cell phone
while driving. Early epidemiological
research reported that using a cell
phone, hand-held or hands-free, was
associated with a quadrupling of the
risk of injury and property damage
31 NHTSA. (2012). Traffic Safety Facts Research
Note: Distracted Driving 2010 (DOT HS 811 650).
Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/
Public/ViewPublication/811650 (last accessed on
10/4/16).
32 NHTSA. (2013). Traffic Safety Facts Research
Note: Distracted Driving 2011 (DOT HS 811 737).
Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/
Public/ViewPublication/811737 (last accessed on
10/4/16).
33 NHTSA. (2014). Traffic Safety Facts Research
Note: Distracted Driving 2012 (DOT HS 812 012).
Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/
Public/ViewPublication/812012 (last accessed on
10/4/16).
34 NHTSA. (2015). Traffic Safety Facts Research
Note: Distracted Driving 2013 (DOT HS 812 132).
Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/
Public/ViewPublication/812132 (last accessed on
10/4/16).
35 Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Distracted
Driving 2014.
36 Possible reasons for the uptick between 2010
and 2014 include the increasing volume of
smartphones in the market and better distractionrelated crash reporting.
37 A sample of simulator and test-track study
reports can be found at www.distraction.gov.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
2. Crash Risk Associated With Portable
Device Use
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
87664
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
crashes.38 39 Subsequent naturalistic
driving studies that investigated the risk
of drivers performing specific cell
phone subtasks all found that increased
crash risk and safety critical event risk
(SCE) were associated with visualmanual operations such as text
messaging and dialing. An SCE was
defined as a crash (where contact was
made with another object), a near-crash
(where a crash was avoided by a rapid
evasive maneuver), or a crash-relevant
conflict (where a crash avoidance
response was performed that was less
severe than a rapid evasive maneuver,
but greater in severity than a ‘‘normal
maneuver’’). However, in the
naturalistic studies, non-visual-manual
operations, such as conversing on a cell
phone, were not found to be associated
with an increase in crash risk.40 41 42
These results were observed for both
commercial motor vehicle and lightvehicle drivers, as well as across broad
classifications of low, moderate, and
high driving task demands.43 In
contrast, research conducted in
simulators and on test tracks has found
driving performance decrements when
driving while talking on a cell phone.44
45 46 47 These experiments, however,
cannot directly connect their results to
SCE risk.
In April 2013, NHTSA published a
study 48 on the impact of hand-held and
hands-free cellular phone use on crash
risk and driving performance. The study
investigated the effects of distraction
from the use of three types of cell
phones while driving: (1) Hand-held
(HH), (2) portable hands-free (PHF), and
(3) integrated hands-free (IHF). Seventyfive percent of the phones used in the
study could be classified as
smartphones. Naturalistic driving data
was collected from 204 drivers who
each voluntarily took part in the study
for an average of 31 days from February
2011 to November 2011. All participants
reported talking on a cell phone while
driving at least once per day prior to
entering the study. With the
participants’ knowledge, data
acquisition systems were installed in
their personal vehicles and
continuously recorded video of the
driver’s face, the roadway, and various
kinematic data such as the vehicle
speed, acceleration, headway
information to lead vehicles, steering,
and location. This was the first
naturalistic driving study to date in
which participants provided their cell
phone records for analysis. The cell
phone records allowed the
determination of when drivers used
their cell phone, while the video data
allowed the determination of the type of
cell phone used, how long it was used
for, and what subtasks were executed.
The result was a rich data set of driver
behavior and performance when using a
cell phone.
SCE risk was investigated using two
approaches: (1) A risk rate approach,
which assessed the SCE risk relative to
general driving (where non-cell-phone
secondary tasks could occur), and (2) a
case-control approach, which assessed
the SCE risk relative to ‘‘just driving’’
(where non-driving-related secondary
tasks did not occur). The risk rate
results are shown below (see the full
report for the case-control results along
with driver performance results). The
odds ratio indicates the relative risk of
an SCE during the listed activity. An
odds ratio value of 1.0 is considered
equivalent to driving while not
distracted. Odds ratio values above 1.0
indicate elevated risk and values below
1.0 indicate decreased risk, though the
difference must be statistically
significant (i.e., reliably different) for
conclusions to be drawn about the
associated risk of that activity.
TABLE 5—SCE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH CELL PHONE USE AS COMPUTED THROUGH RISK RATE APPROACH
Subtask
Odds ratio
Cell Phone Use—Collapsed across types .......................................................
Visual-Manual ..................................................................................................
Call-related Visual-Manual .......................................................................
Text-related Visual-Manual .......................................................................
Talking/Listening ..............................................................................................
Talking/Listening Hand-held .....................................................................
Talking/Listening Portable Hands-free .....................................................
Talking/Listening Integrated Hands-free ...................................................
HH Cell Phone Use (Collapsed) ......................................................................
PHF Cell Phone Use (Collapsed) ....................................................................
IHF Cell Phone Use (Collapsed) .....................................................................
Lower
confidence
limit
(LCL)
1.32
* 2.93
* 3.34
* 2.12
0.84
0.84
1.19
0.61
* 1.73
1.06
0.57
0.96
1.90
1.76
1.14
0.55
0.47
0.55
0.27
1.20
0.49
0.25
Upper
confidence
limit
(UCL)
1.81
4.51
6.35
3.96
1.29
1.53
2.57
1.41
2.49
2.30
1.31
p-value
.0917
<.0001
.0003
.0184
.4217
.5764
.6581
.2447
.0034
.8780
.1859
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
* Indicates a difference at the .05 level of significance.
38 McEvoy, S.P., Stevenson, M.R., McCartt, A.T.,
Woodward, M., Haworth, C., Palamara, P., et al.
(2005). Role of portable phones in motor vehicle
crashes resulting in hospital attendance: A casecrossover study. British Journal of Medicine, 331,
428–434.
39 Redelmeier, D.A., & Tibshirani, R.J. (1997).
Association between cellular-telephone calls and
motor vehicle collisions. The New England Journal
of Medicine, 336, 453–458.
40 Hickman, J.S., Hanowski, R.J., & Bocanegra, J.
(2010). Distraction in Commercial Trucks and
Buses: Assessing Prevalence and Risk in
Conjunction with Crashes and Near-Crashes
(FMCSA–RRR–10–049). Washington, DC: Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
41 Klauer, S.G., et al. (2006). The Impact of Driver
Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis
Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
(DOT HS 810 594). Washington, DC: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
42 Olson, R.L., Hanowski, R.J., Hickman, J.S., &
Bocanegra, J. (2009). Driver Distraction in
Commercial Vehicle Operations: Final Report.
Contract DTMC75–07–D–00006, Task Order 3.
Washington, DC: Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.
43 Fitch, G.M. & Hanowski, R. J. (2011). The risk
of a safety-critical event associated with portable
device use as a function of driving task demands.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Driver Distraction and Inattention.
44 Atchley, P. & Dressel, J. (2004). Conversation
limits the functional field of view. Human Factors:
The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society 46(4), 664–673.
45 Drews, F.A., Pasupathi, M., & Strayer, D.L.
(2004). Passenger and cell-phone conversations in
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
simulated driving. Proceedings of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual
Meeting 48, 2210–2212.
46 Horrey, W.J., Lesch, M.F., & Garabet, A. (2008).
Assessing the awareness of performance decrements
in distracted drivers. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 40(2), 675–682. doi: 10.1016/
j.app.2007.09.004.
47 Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A., & Johnston, W.A.
(2003). Cell phone-induced failures of visual
attention during simulated driving. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(1), 23–32.
48 Fitch, G., et al. (2013). The Impact of HandHeld and Hands-Free Cell Phone Use on Driving
Performance and Safety-Critical Event Risk (DOT
HS 811 757). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
87665
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
The risk rate approach generates a
powerful estimate of risk by using all
accounts of when cell phones were used
while driving. However, it cannot assess
the SCE risk relative to ‘‘just driving’’
(defined as driving void of all nondriving-related secondary tasks) without
the availability of estimates of the
propensity for each potential secondary
task that is performed while driving.
The case-control approach was thus
used to address this limitation. A total
of 2,308 baseline periods were randomly
sampled based on each driver’s driving
time in the study. This number was
selected to be at least four times the 342
SCEs that were identified. The odds of
an SCE occurring during specific cell
phone subtasks were then compared to
the odds of an SCE occurring when just
driving. Note that ‘‘just driving’’ was
only found in 46 percent of the baseline
periods. Table 6 presents the odds ratios
(ORs) and 95-percent confidence limits
for various cell phone subtasks. As in
the previous risk analysis, only VM
subtasks performed on an HH cell
phone were found to be associated with
an increased SCE risk. Conversing on a
cell phone (i.e., any type of cell phone)
was not found to increase SCE risk.
TABLE 6—SCE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH CELL PHONE USE AS COMPUTED THROUGH CASE-CONTROL APPROACH
Subtask
Cell Phone Use—Collapsed ...........................
Visual-Manual Subtasks ..
Text messaging/
Browsing ................
Locate/Answer ..........
Dial ............................
Push to Begin/End
Use ........................
End HH Phone Use ..
Talking on Cell Phone .....
HH Talking ................
PHF Talking ..............
IHF Talking ...............
HH Cell Phone Use (Collapsed) ..........................
PHF Cell Phone Use (Collapsed) ..........................
IHF Cell Phone Use (Collapsed) ..........................
OR
LCL
UCL
Number
baseline
periods
(BL)
#SCE
SCE total
BL total
Total
1.1
* 1.73
0.8
1.12
1.53
2.69
57
29
358
116
211
183
1,426
1,184
1,637
1,367
1.73
* 3.65
0.99
0.98
1.67
0.12
3.08
8
8.11
16
10
1
64
19
7
170
164
155
1,132
1,087
1,075
1,302
1,251
1,230
0.63
1.26
0.75
0.79
0.73
0.71
0.08
0.43
0.49
0.43
0.36
0.3
4.92
3.71
1.15
1.44
1.47
1.66
1
4
28
13
9
6
11
22
259
114
86
59
155
158
182
167
163
160
1,079
1,090
1,327
1,182
1,154
1,127
1,234
1,248
1,509
1,349
1,317
1,287
1.39
0.96
2.03
41
204
195
1,272
1,467
0.79
0.4
1.55
10
88
164
1,156
1,320
0.62
0.26
1.46
6
67
160
1,135
1,295
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
* Indicates a difference at the .05 level of significance.
The overall results from the study
presented a clear finding: Visual-manual
subtasks performed on hand-held cell
phones degraded driver performance
and increased SCE risk. Although
current hands-free cell phone interfaces
allow drivers to communicate with their
voices, there is a concern that they still
require visual-manual interactions. In
fact, drivers in this study frequently
initiated hands-free calls and performed
other visual-manual operations (e.g.,
texted) with a hand-held cell phone. A
notable finding was that approximately
half of the hands-free cell phone
interactions in this study were found to
involve visual-manual interactions with
the hand-held phone. These findings
that implicate visual-manual distraction
as the primary distraction risk are
consistent with previous naturalistic
driving investigations of crash risk
related to cell phone subtasks,49
49 Hickman, J.S., Hanowski, R.J., & Bocanegra, J.
(2010). Distraction in Commercial Trucks and
Buses: Assessing Prevalence and Risk in
Conjunction with Crashes and Near-Crashes
(FMCSA–RRR–10–049). Washington, DC: Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
including the 100-Car Naturalistic
Driving Study.50 51 52 53
F. Overview of Efforts To Combat Driver
Distraction
Recognizing the distraction safety
issue outlined above, NHTSA published
the ‘‘Overview of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration’s Driver
Distraction Program,’’ 54 in April 2010.
50 Neale, V.L., et al. (2005). An Overview of the
100-Car Naturalistic Study and Findings, ESV Paper
05–0400.
51 Dingus, T.A., et al. (2006). The 100-Car
Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II—Results of the
100-Car Field Experiment (DOT HS 810 593).
Washington, DC: National Traffic Safety
Administration.
52 Klauer, S.G., et al. (2006). The Impact of Driver
Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis
Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data
(DOT HS 810 594). Washington, DC: National
Traffic Safety Administration.
53 Klauer, S.G., et al. (2010). An Analysis of Driver
Inattention Using a Case-Crossover Approach On
100-Car Data: Final Report (DOT HS 811 334).
Washington, DC: National Traffic Safety
Administration.
54 NHTSA. (2010). Overview of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Driver
Distraction Program, (DOT HS 811 299). Available
at https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_
driving/pdf/811299.pdf (last accessed on 10/4/16).
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
This plan consisted of four main
initiatives:
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.
NHTSA’s Driver Distraction Guidelines
fall under this initiative.
3. Keep drivers safe through the
introduction of crash avoidance
technologies. These include the use of
crash warning systems to re-focus the
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
87666
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
attention of distracted drivers as well as
vehicle-initiated (i.e., automatic)
braking and steering to prevent or
mitigate distraction-affected crashes.
Research 55 56 57 58 on how best to warn
distracted drivers in crash imminent
situations is also supporting this
initiative. NHTSA is also performing a
large amount of research on automatic
emergency braking technologies (e.g.,
crash warning systems or automatic
braking systems) and dynamic brake
support.
4. Educate drivers about the risks and
consequences of distracted driving. This
includes targeted media messages,
drafting and publishing sample textmessaging laws for consideration and
possible use by the states, testing highvisibility enforcement programs, and
publishing guidance for a ban on text
messaging by Federal government
employees while driving.
In June 2012, the US DOT released a
‘‘Blueprint for Ending Distracted
Driving.’’ 59 This was an update of the
‘‘Overview of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration’s Driver
Distraction Program.’’ 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.’’
Industry and safety advocacy groups
have also been working to eliminate
driver distraction using education and
public awareness campaigns, as well as
through design guidance for built-in
systems and other aftermarket solutions.
The following sections highlight the
efforts by NHTSA and the US DOT in
legislative and enforcement approaches,
education and public awareness
approaches, and device-based solutions
(e.g., guidelines or products), as well as
similar efforts by industry and safety
advocates
55 Lerner, N., et al. (2011). Crash Warning
Interface Metrics: Final Report (DOT HS 811 470a).
Washington, DC: National Traffic Safety
Administration.
56 Robinson, E., et al. (2011). Crash Warning
Interface Metrics: Task 3 Final Report: Empirical
Studies of Effects of DVI Variability (DOT HS 811
470b). Washington, DC: National Traffic Safety
Administration.
57 Robinson, E., et al. (2011). Crash Warning
Interface Metrics: Task 3 Report Appendices (DOT
HS 811 470c). Washington, DC: National Traffic
Safety Administration.
58 Forkenbrock, G., et al. (2011). A Test Track
Protocol for Assessing Forward Collision Warning
Driver-Vehicle Interface Effectiveness (DOT HS 811
501). Washington, DC: National Traffic Safety
Administration.
59 NHTSA. (2012). Blueprint for Ending
Distracted Driving (DOT HS 811 629). Available at:
https://www.distraction.gov/downloads/pdfs/
blueprint-for-ending-distracted-driving.pdf. (last
accessed on 10/4/16).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
G. Efforts by States To Address
Distracted Driving Involving the Use of
Portable Devices
Most states, with the support of
NHTSA and the US DOT, have passed
laws to limit the use of portable devices
while driving. Currently, 46 states, DC,
Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands ban texting while driving for
drivers of all ages. Fourteen states, DC,
Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands ban drivers of all ages from
using hand-held cell phones while
driving.
In 2012, NHTSA partnered with the
State of California and the State of
Delaware to initiate a high-visibility
enforcement (increased police presence
supported by paid and earned media)
demonstration program in the
Sacramento area of California and in the
State of Delaware in support of laws
banning the use of hand-held cell
phones while driving. Three waves of
enforcement were conducted between
October 2012 and June 2013. The
featured tagline for the public face of the
program was ‘‘Phone in one Hand,
Ticket in the Other.’’ During the study
period, a small percentage of crashes
were coded as distraction-related, but
the crash data analyses did not reveal
any apparent effect of the high-visibility
enforcement on the incidence of
distraction-related crashes. Driver
surveys, however, showed an increase
in awareness that cell phone laws were
being enforced. Observed hand-held
driver cell phone use dropped by onethird from 4.1 percent to 2.7 percent in
California (a 34% reduction); and from
4.5 percent to 3.0 percent in Delaware
(a 33% reduction). The study concluded
that high-visibility enforcement can be
implemented over wide-spread, multijurisdictional areas and reduce the
number of people who use a hand-held
cell phone while driving.60
H. Education and Public Awareness
Efforts
1. Government Programs and Efforts
The US DOT and NHTSA have put
considerable effort toward reaching out
to the community and the various
stakeholders since the emergence of
distracted driving as a traffic safety
concern. The US DOT and NHTSA
conducted two national summits, one in
2009 and one in 2011, to bring attention
to the issue.
60 Chaudhary, N.K., Connolly, J., Tison, J.,
Solomon, M., & Elliott, K. (2015). Evaluation of the
NHTSA distracted driving high-visibility
enforcement demonstration projects in California
and Delaware. (DOT HS 812 108). Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Following these distraction summits,
NHTSA has held several meetings with
stakeholders such as representatives of
the automotive and communications
industries as well as researchers and
other key leaders to continue the public
policy discussion on the distracted
driving issue. For the public, NHTSA
has created a Web site,
www.distraction.gov, to provide timely
information on distracted driving and
current information on related research
and development activities.
NHTSA has had, and continues to
use, public service messages to change
the attitudes and behaviors of drivers
through social norming and
enforcement messages. Social norming
messaging is designed to appeal to the
individual to change their behavior
because it is the socially acceptable
thing to do without an underlying
theme related to deterrence (e.g. ‘‘One
text or call could wreck it all’’). The
enforcement messages were designed to
be used in conjunction with high
visibility enforcement programs to
promote compliance with distracted
driving laws or face the possible of an
enforcement encounter (e.g. ‘‘U Drive U
Text U Pay.’’) Several messages in each
category have been used since the
inception of the distracted driving
prevention effort.
NHTSA has also made efforts to reach
out into the community on the issue of
distracted driving through social media
(e.g. ‘‘Twitter parties’’) and blogs. There
have also been a number of webinars for
stakeholders and the public to
familiarize them with recent
developments in the effort to
understand and reduce distractive
driving behavior.
On February 6, 2014, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, led by Senator Jay
Rockefeller (West Virginia), held a
summit that focused on addressing
potential technological solutions for
minimizing driver distraction. The
summit consisted of three roundtable
sessions: (1) The State of Distracted
Driving, (2) The State of Technology,
and (3) Where do we go from there?
Participants in all three of these
roundtables consisted of Federal
agencies, safety advocacy groups,
industry associations, and companies
from the automobile, consumer
electronics, technology, and
communications industries. The summit
facilitated a dialogue between the
various organizations, encouraging all
participants to continue working
together technologically to reduce the
negative impacts of driver distraction.
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
2. Industry Programs and Efforts
A range of industry stakeholders have
also put forth an effort to educate
drivers on the dangers of distracted
driving. While there are too many
education and public service
announcement campaigns from industry
and information outlets to list in this
notice, two recent efforts by the wireless
industry are included as examples (see
www.distraction.gov for a larger set of
examples). As early as 1999, the
wireless industry expended
considerable effort to promote driver
education about distracted driving. Most
recently, the wireless industry partnered
with the National Safety Council for the
‘‘On the Road, Off the Phone’’
campaign, which was directed at
parents and younger drivers and
focused on the dangers of texting while
driving. In another campaign, AT&T
began the ‘‘It Can Wait’’ education and
awareness initiative recently, and
garnered partnerships with several
wireless carriers including Verizon
Wireless, Sprint, and T-Mobile, as well
as an endorsement from the CTIA—The
Wireless Association.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
I. Design Guideline Efforts
1. NHTSA’s Phase 1 Visual-Manual
Driver Distraction Guidelines
As part of NHTSA’s efforts to reduce
driver workload associated with
performing tasks using devices within
the vehicle (original equipment,
aftermarket, and portable in-vehicle
electronic devices) the agency has been
developing Driver Distraction
Guidelines for these devices. NHTSA
issued its first phase of driver
distraction guidelines on April 26, 2013,
after notice and comment.61 NHTSA’s
Phase 1 Visual-Manual Driver
Distraction Guidelines cover OE invehicle electronic devices that are
operated by the driver through visualmanual 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). The Phase 1 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 Phase 1 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.
To facilitate the development of these
guidelines, NHTSA studied existing
guidelines relating to driver distraction
prevention and reduction and found the
‘‘Statement of Principles, Criteria and
61 78
FR 24817 (Apr. 26, 2013).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
Verification Procedures on DriverInteractions with Advanced In-Vehicle
Information and Communication
Systems’’ developed by the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance
Guidelines) to be the most complete and
up-to-date. The Alliance Guidelines
provided valuable input in NHTSA’s
efforts to address driver distraction
issues. Although NHTSA drew heavily
on that input in developing the Phase 1
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.
The Phase 1 Guidelines are based
upon a number of fundamental
principles. These principles include
that:
• 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 Phase 1 Guidelines list certain
activities that inherently interfere with
a driver’s ability to safely control the
vehicle, and the 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 (referred to as
‘‘per se lock outs’’). The basis for these
lock outs includes activities that are
discouraged by public policy and, in
some instances, prohibited by Federal
regulation and/or State law (e.g.,
entering or displaying text messages).
They also include activities identified in
industry driver distraction guidelines,
which NHTSA agrees are likely to
distract drivers significantly (e.g.,
displaying video or automatically
scrolling text). Finally, the lock outs
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
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
87667
video or certain images). The specific
per se lock outs are as follows:
• 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, textbased advertising and marketing, or
text-based messages.
The per se lock out 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, which
would conform to these Guidelines, 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® 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 Phase 1 Guidelines specify
two alternative test methods for
measuring the impact of performing a
task on driving safety, as well as timebased acceptance criteria for assessing
whether a task interferes too much with
driver attention. It should be noted that
secondary task is a broad term that
captures any interaction the driver has
with an in-vehicle device that is not
directly related to the safe operation and
control of a vehicle, and thus captures
all non-driving-related tasks as well as
driving-related tasks that aid the driving
task but not the safe operation or control
of the vehicle. If a visual-manual
secondary task does not meet the
acceptance criteria, the Phase 1
Guidelines recommend that OE invehicle 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.
Eye-glance-based criteria were selected
because the research on visual-manual
distraction establishes a link between
visual attention (eyes off the road) and
crash risk.
The first recommended test method
measures the amount of time that the
driver’s eyes are drawn away from the
forward roadway while performing a
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
87668
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
task. The Phase 1 Guidelines
recommend that devices be designed so
that tasks can be completed by the
driver while driving with individual
glances away from the roadway of 2
seconds or less and a cumulative time
spent looking away from the roadway of
12 seconds or less. The second test
method uses a visual occlusion
technique and involves participants
performing a task using occlusion
goggles that alternatively open and shut
every 1.5 seconds. The Phase 1
Guidelines recommend that devices be
designed so that tasks can be completed
with a cumulative shutter open time of
12 seconds or less.
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 Phase 1 Guidelines
contain other recommendations for invehicle 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
recommended maximum downward
viewing angle to the geometric center of
each display.
In the notice announcing the Phase 1
Guidelines, the agency clarified that
because the Guidelines were voluntary
and non-binding, NHTSA’s normal
enforcement procedures related to
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) compliance were not
applicable. However, NHTSA indicated
that as part of its ongoing distraction
research activities, the agency does
intend to monitor manufacturers’
voluntary adoption of the Phase 1
Guidelines.
2. Efforts by Industry To Address Driver
Distraction From Portable Devices
Various efforts focused on portable
and aftermarket devices have been
initiated by industry to address driver
distraction. In July 2013, the Consumer
Technology Association (CTA), an
association comprised of 2,000
companies within the consumer
technology industry, initiated a Working
Group focused on addressing portable
and aftermarket electronic devices used
by drivers in vehicles (formally named
R6 WG18 Driver-Device Interface
Working Group). Through mid-2014, the
group had the goal of developing
industry-based guidelines for portable
device design that would address driver
distraction. As indicated in a letter to
the agency, the group had planned to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
use the NHTSA Phase 1 Guidelines as
a starting point. The focus of this group
had been to create a set of recommended
practices by bringing together industry
stakeholders and soliciting their
technical input and expertise. These
voluntary, industry-based recommended
practices were intended to be used by
portable electronic device
manufacturers, software developers, and
any other interested parties to improve
the safety of driving and non-drivingrelated task performance. In mid-2014,
the Working Group abandoned its work
to develop industry-based guidelines
due to liability concerns, instead
modifying its overall objective to
produce a technical report that
categorizes ‘‘products and services
offered by the consumer electronics (CE)
industry that help make the driving
experience safer.’’ 62 CTA’s technical
report surveying the existing driver
mode technologies was released in
January 2015.63 NHTSA has been
participating in CTA’s working group as
a non-voting liaison since its inception.
NHTSA has provided explanations and
rationale for aspects of NHTSA’s Phase
1 Visual-Manual Driver Distraction
Guidelines, and participated in
discussions regarding the application of
the guideline’s basic principles to the
complex, multipart ecosystem of
portable and aftermarket electronic
devices.
There have also been efforts within
the standardization sector of the
International Telecommunications
Union (ITU–T) 64 to establish
international consensus-based
distraction standards for Information
and Communications Technologies
(ICTs). The ITU–T effort was intended
to establish interoperability standards
that enable the vehicle to safely manage
driver interaction with ICT applications
and services, regardless of if they are
downloaded to a vehicle or reside in a
62 Consumer Electronics (2014) CEA Cataloguing
Driver Safety Products and Services [Press release].
Retrieved from https://www.ce.org/News/NewsReleases/Press-Releases/2014/CEA-CataloguingDriver-Safety-Products-andService.aspx?feed=Technology-Standards-PressReleases (last accessed on 10/4/16).
63 Consumer Electronics (2015). Keeping Your
Eyes on the Road: What the CE Industry is Doing
to Help You Drive Safely. CEA–TR–6. Avalaible for
purchase at https://www.techstreet.com/standards/
cta-tr-6?product_id=1888242 (last accessed on 10/4/
16).
64 The International Telecommunication Union
(ITU) is the United Nations specialized agency in
the field of telecommunications, information and
communication technologies (ICTs). The ITU
Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU–T)
is a permanent organ of ITU. ITU–T is responsible
for studying technical, operating and tariff
questions and issuing Recommendations on them
with a view to standardizing telecommunications
on a worldwide basis.
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
roadside station, portable device, cloudbased server, etc. These interoperability
standards define functional
mechanisms, data formats, and
communications protocols. The
proposed ITU–T ‘‘User Interface
Requirements for Automotive
Applications’’ (P.UIA Recommendation)
would provide design guidance for user
interfaces, as well as recommended test
procedures and performance thresholds.
As it stands, the published P.UIA
Recommendation only proposes a
structure for the guidance. The ITU–T’s
efforts were concluded in 2013 with the
publication of several reports.65
NHTSA is also participating as a
liaison for a task group formed by the
Car Connectivity Consortium (CCC), the
developers of Mirror Link, to discuss the
technical issues of device pairing,
integration, testing, and certification.
Mirror Link represents a major industry
effort to enable and promote device
pairing in vehicles. This effort began in
November 2014.
In addition to these formal industry
efforts to produce best practices,
guidelines, and recommendations,
several companies and groups have
demonstrated various technical
solutions for aspects of the distracted
driving problem to NHTSA. These
solutions include a driver mode for
portable devices, anti-texting software
applications that provide the capability
to lock out the portable device screen,
and driver distinction technologies that
are both vehicle- and portable-device
based. Each of these topics was
included in NHTSA’s Phase 2 Public
Meeting in March 2014.
3. Public Meeting on the Phase 2
Distraction Guidelines
On March 12, 2014, NHTSA hosted a
public meeting to bring together vehicle
manufacturers and suppliers, portable
and aftermarket device manufacturers,
portable and aftermarket device
operating system providers, cellular
service providers, industry associations,
application developers, researchers, and
consumer groups to discuss technical
issues regarding the agency’s
development of Phase 2 Driver
Distraction Guidelines for portable and
aftermarket devices. The transcript for
the public meeting and webcast video
can be found in the docket for today’s
proposed guidelines,66 along with
65 See the ITU–T’s Web site for the Focus Group
on Distraction, which includes all reports that
resulted from this effort. Available at https://
www.itu.int/en/ITU–T/focusgroups/distraction/
Pages/default.aspx (last accessed on 10/4/16).
66 Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0137, ‘‘Driver
Distraction Guidelines (Phase 2) for Portable and
After-Market Devices Public Meeting Agenda and
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
copies of all presentations and spoken
remarks.
In the public meeting, NHTSA
presented an overview of the Phase 1
Driver Distraction Guidelines and the
key technical issues in Phase 2. CTA
presented a summary of its efforts to
develop industry-based best practices
for portable and aftermarket devices that
could be used by drivers inside the
vehicle. Following these presentations,
there were three panels of invited
experts who addressed the following
technical topics: (1) Vehicle and
portable/aftermarket device pairing, (2)
Driver Mode and advanced
technologies, and (3) technologies that
automatically distinguish between
devices used by drivers and passengers.
In its presentation about the
Distraction Guidelines, NHTSA
highlighted the guiding principles for
the guidelines along with the technical
approaches to Phases 1 and 2. NHTSA
emphasized pairing between the vehicle
and portable devices as a means for
incorporating portable and aftermarket
devices under the Phase 1 Distraction
Guidelines. NHTSA also discussed
Driver Mode as an approach for
unpaired portable devices. NHTSA
encouraged the development of
technology that can distinguish driver
portable device use from passenger
portable device use. NHTSA noted that
similar test procedures and acceptance
thresholds from Phase 1 would be
applied to Phase 2. Other issues under
consideration for the Phase 2 Distraction
Guidelines included applicability to
head-up displays and wearable devices,
any additional per se lock outs that
might be required for portable and
aftermarket devices, placement of the
portable device for testing, and
continuous display information that
does not meet the Phase 1 task
definition. NHTSA concluded its
presentation by highlighting the general
process for publishing the Phase 2
Distraction Guidelines.
Following NHTSA’s presentation,
CTA gave a presentation on its DriverDevice Interface Working Group and
activities for generating industry-based
best practices. In its presentation at the
public meeting, CTA noted that it
believes best practices developed by
industry collaboration have the greatest
chance of success in the marketplace.
Additionally, CTA recommended
pairing. As of mid-2014, the Working
Group modified its objective, choosing
to develop a technology inventory
Presentations ’’ ID: NHTSA–2013–0137–0004.
Available at https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NHTSA-2013-0137 (last accessed
on 10/4/16).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
instead of guidelines or
recommendations.
The pairing panel consisted of
presentations by General Motors,
Toyota, Delphi, and the Car
Connectivity Consortium. The Driver
Mode and Advanced Technologies
panel consisted of presentations by
AT&T, Garmin, and Pioneer. The DriverPassenger Distinction panel consisted of
presentations by Cellcontrol,
Cellepathy, and Lakeland Ventures
Development-Takata. NHTSA
conducted a period of questions and
answers from the panelists after the
presentations. NHTSA received
additional comments from Consumers
Union, Origo, and Vesstech that were
read from the floor. Each of these
presentations and spoken remarks can
be found in the Phase 2 docket.67
Comments: In response to the public
meeting, eight comments were posted to
the docket by the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance),
Blackberry Limited, CTIA—The
Wireless Association, General Motors,
Life Apps, the National Safety Council,
Vesstech, and Consumers Union. Seven
of the eight commenters supported
NHTSA’s Phase 2 Distraction
Guidelines, with only CTIA
recommending that solutions to portable
device-based driver distraction be left
solely to industry collaborations. CTIA
also challenged NHTSA’s authority to
issue regulations, or even voluntary
guidelines, for portable devices. The
Alliance and General Motors urged
NHTSA to complete Phase 2 as soon as
possible, and the Alliance suggested
NHTSA combine Phases 1 and 2 into a
single set of NHTSA Distraction
Guidelines. The National Safety Council
requested NHTSA reconsider the threephase approach to the distraction
guidelines and to consider the full body
of driver distraction literature rather
than focusing solely on visual-manual
distraction. Specifically, the National
Safety Council urged NHTSA to include
cognitive distraction issues in Phase 2
along with the visual-manual that were
the focus of the Phase 1 Distraction
Guidelines. CTIA commented that
translating the Phase 1 Distraction
Guidelines to portable devices is
infeasible, partly due to the complex
ecosystem surrounding portable
devices, and that education and
legislative approaches to the distraction
67 Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0137, ‘‘Driver
Distraction Guidelines (Phase 2) for Portable and
After-Market Devices Public Meeting Agenda and
Presentations’’ ID: NHTSA–2013–0137–0004.
Available at https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NHTSA-2013-0137 (last accessed
on 10/4/16).
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
87669
problem should be the government’s
focus.
The Alliance, Blackberry Limited,
General Motors, and Consumers Union
all supported NHTSA’s emphasis on
paired solutions. The Alliance reiterated
findings from research that quantified
the extent to which consumers are
‘‘connected’’ in their daily lives,
including while driving. The Alliance
highlighted this research, which was
posted to the Phase 1 Docket, as
additional support for pairing or
tethering solutions. The Alliance also
highlighted that some of its members
were already working towards pairing
solutions, and that the Car Connectivity
Consortium was a formal industry
organization working towards that end.
General Motors mentioned its own
efforts towards paired solutions.
Blackberry Limited urged NHTSA to
consider the ITU–T draft set of industrygenerated recommendations for
information and communications
technologies. Consumers Union
described its findings on various
existing pairing solutions, and
specifically how easy or user-friendly
the pairing process was for drivers.
Blackberry Limited offered several
specific suggestions for NHTSA to
consider about pairing solutions and
Driver Mode.
The response to Driver Mode solution
was mixed, with the Alliance stating
that the only acceptable Driver Mode
was the portable device in the ‘‘off’’
setting, and that Driver Mode ‘‘apps’’
that drivers must choose to engage are
not realistic solutions. Blackberry
Limited, Consumers Union, and Life
Apps provided specific
recommendations or support for Driver
Mode implementations. Blackberry
Limited had specific suggestions
regarding pairing and Driver Mode, and
urged NHTSA to not recommend less
stringent guidelines for Driver Mode,
but also not to include specific
technological approaches (i.e., the
specific wireless communication
protocol between the portable device
and the vehicle) in the Phase 2
Distraction Guidelines. CTIA also noted
the fact that several driver mode ‘‘apps,’’
or applications that otherwise limit
portable device functionality while
driving, are currently available is
evidence that industry is working
towards solutions to the distraction
problem with portable devices, and
therefore NHTSA’s guidelines are
unnecessary.
The Alliance supported NHTSA’s
inclusion of driver-passenger distinction
technology and urged NHTSA to
establish a cooperative research program
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
87670
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
with industry to foster technological
development in this area.
Some commenters in the public
meeting had specific implementation
suggestions for portable device-use
while driving. For example, the
National Safety Council suggested
NHTSA require portable devices have
an option to quickly turn the portable
device off while driving. Life Apps
highlighted an approach that uses the
portable device only, which does not
require hardware components to detect
that the driver is using the device when
driving. Vesstech argued for a solution
that included mandatory vocal warnings
to be automatically spoken to drivers. It
suggested that the emotional content
relayed by the human voice would be an
effective deterrent that would
discourage portable device use while
driving. CTIA argued that education,
legislation, and technical innovation are
the best ways to address distraction
from portable devices, and listed the
ways in which they have been active in
each area.
Agency Response: NHTSA is
considering combining Phase 1 and 2
Guidelines, to the extent practicable. As
discussed previously, we seek comment
on the combination of the Phase 1 and
2 Guidelines. A statement of NHTSA’s
authority to issue voluntary, nonbinding guidance is included in Section
V of this notice.
NHTSA provided a detailed
explanation and rationale for the focus
on visual-manual distraction in the
Phase 1 Guidelines,68 which addresses
the National Safety Council’s suggestion
that NHTSA include the full-range of
distraction and associated research
literature, namely cognitive distraction.
NHTSA recognizes the importance of
experimental research findings, such as
those using driving simulators, that
show decreased driving performance for
distractions of all types. Both
naturalistic driving studies (such as
NHTSA’s 2013 cell phone naturalistic
driving study 69) and experimental
studies consistently show that visualmanual distraction contributes to
degraded driving performance and a
significantly elevated crash risk. While
the full body of research data is less
conclusive with respect to cognitive
distraction, the agency continues to be
actively engaged in reviewing the latest
research findings. In May 2015, NHTSA
hosted an event called ‘‘Cognitive
Distraction: What Were You
68 78
FR 24817 (Apr. 26, 2013), pp. 24836–24838.
69 Fitch, G., et al. (2013). The Impact of HandHeld and Hands-Free Cell Phone Use on Driving
Performance and Safety-Critical Event Risk (DOT
HS 811 757). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
Thinking?’’ 70 that brought members of
the international research community
and safety advocates together to discuss
what cognitive distraction is, how to
measure it, and what to do about it.
NHTSA is also currently conducting a
significant amount of research related to
auditory-vocal (i.e., voice-based) system
interfaces, as well as a study to explore
ways of measuring internal cognitive
distraction (e.g., mind wandering) while
driving.
NHTSA has reviewed each of the
detailed recommendations from the
various commenters on both pairing and
driver mode. Some of those
recommendations are consistent with
NHTSA’s goal of remaining neutral
regarding specific technological
approaches to pairing and to Driver
Mode activation, and therefore are
reflected in these proposed Phase 2
Guidelines. At NHTSA’s public
meeting, participants on the DriverPassenger Distinction panel presented
different technological approaches to
identifying which vehicle occupant is
using a portable device. Most
approaches use a combination of
hardware and software installed in the
vehicle and on the portable device to
determine whether the device user is a
driver or passenger.
One approach involved a piece of
hardware that creates zones within a
vehicle by emitting signals. The driver’s
seating position would have a different
signal that could be identified by
software and/or hardware on a portable
device. Identifying the driver’s position
with this method would potentially
allow the device to activate the driver
mode only for the driver while he or she
is driving. This signal could vary
depending on the transmission state.
Another driver-passenger distinction
technology uses capacitive sensors
within the seats that allow the vehicle
to detect where portable devices are
being used within a vehicle. These
sensors are able to determine if each
occupant is holding and using a
portable device by utilizing the
conductivity of the human body. By
detecting if a driver is using a portable
device, the vehicle can tell the portable
device to activate the driver mode.
Driver Mode can be activated depending
on the state of the vehicle’s transmission
(i.e., park vs. drive).
Finally, a device-only solution uses
an authentication task approach where
a device automatically goes into a
limited use state (e.g., Driver Mode) at
70 Presentations and video recording of the event
can be found at the NHTSA Web site: https://
www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/symposiums/may2015/
index.html (last accessed on 10/4/16).
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
a speed threshold, and a quick, but
challenging task is required to re-enable
full functionality on the device. These
authentication tasks are designed to be
quick and easy for non-drivers, but
nearly impossible to complete
successfully within the short time limit
for drivers.
NHTSA recognizes that there may be
other concepts to achieve driverpassenger distinction that were not
presented in the Public Meeting, but
those presented provide an example of
how this capability can be achieved
technologically. Accordingly, NHTSA
continues to monitor the development
and progress of driver-passenger
distinction technologies, and seeks
input on how to foster the refinement of
that technology to enhance reliable and
automatic Driver Mode solutions for
unpaired portable devices. For example,
the Alliance recommended establishing
a cooperative research program. The
agency seeks comments from all
stakeholders on what specific research
needs remain to progress driverpassenger distinction technology to full
maturity.
All presentations and comments from
the NHTSA Phase 2 Public Meeting are
available for download in the Phase 2
docket,71 along with the transcript of the
meeting and a link to the recorded
webcast of the meeting.
III. Distraction Guidelines for Portable
and Aftermarket Devices
A. Scope
1. Devices/Device Interfaces
The proposed Phase 2 Guidelines
would apply to the visual-manual
interfaces of portable and aftermarket
devices that may be used by a driver. A
‘‘portable device’’ is defined as a device
that can reasonably be expected to be
brought into a vehicle on a trip-by-trip
basis and used in the vehicle by a driver
while driving, that is electrically
powered, and that has one or more of
the following capabilities:
• Allows user interaction.
• Enters, sends, and/or receives
information.
• Displays information in a visual
and/or auditory manner, or
• Displays graphical, photographic,
and/or video images.
The agency has tentatively concluded
that this definition sets out the
appropriate scope for the types of device
71 Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0137, ‘‘Driver
Distraction Guidelines (Phase 2) for Portable and
After-Market Devices Public Meeting Agenda and
Presentations ’’ ID: NHTSA–2013–0137–0004.
Available at https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NHTSA-2013-0137 (last accessed
on 10/4/16).
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
interfaces that should be covered by the
Phase 2 Guidelines, i.e., the interfaces of
portable electronic devices that are
likely to be used by drivers when
driving. Examples of portable devices
covered by the proposed Phase 2
Guidelines are smartphones, tablets, and
navigation devices. The
recommendations to manufacturers in
these guidelines are intended to focus
on devices used by drivers while
driving. NHTSA seeks comment on
whether clarification/revisions to the
provisions in this guidance document
are necessary to ensure that passengers/
non-drivers are not inadvertently
impacted by this guidance document. In
other words, NHTSA seeks to ensure
that passengers (including front
passengers) are able to use their devices
and applications without disruption.
Additionally, this definition would
include some of the new portable
technology that is beginning to appear,
such as wearable technology (electronic
devices with interfaces that are worn on
and move with the body) and certain
non-OE, head-up displays (HUDs).72
Wearable technology includes
wristwatch computers and optical headmounted displays (OHMD). Although
OHMD and HUD interfaces are
classified as portable or aftermarket
devices and would therefore be covered
by the Phase 2 Guidelines, the agency
notes that there are issues with applying
the Phase 1 glance-based metrics to
measure the level of visual distraction
associated with the use of these devices.
The most significant issue with
applying Phase 1 acceptance tests to
OHMD and HUD is that the performance
criteria for measuring distraction is
eyes-off-road time and the information
from these technologies is displayed
either directly in front of the driver’s
eyes (OHMD) or on the windshield in
front of the driver (HUD). While the
driver may appear to be looking toward
the forward roadway, the driver’s eyes
would actually be focused at a different
focal distance that corresponds to the
displayed OHMD/HUD information.
This means that in testing it may not be
possible to reliably discern whether the
driver’s eyes are focused on the roadway
or the information displayed on the
OHMD/HUD, which confounds the
ability to evaluate eye glance behavior
72 HUDs for motor vehicles project information
onto the windshield in front of the driver.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
to the task acceptance criteria. The
agency is concerned that although these
devices might tend to keep the eyes
oriented toward the forward roadway,
the presentation of information in front
of the driver may still result in visual
distraction causing the eyes to be
focused on the displayed information
rather than on the road (e.g., visual
accommodation changes to view the
presented information could result in
the driver’s view of the forward
roadway being out of focus).
Accordingly, the agency has begun
research on these devices to determine
whether their use impacts vehicle safety
and, if so, what visual attention metrics
might be used to explain the effects.
Finally, NHTSA recognizes that many
of these new portable devices are
released as pre-production versions,
thereby allowing the market to update,
refine, and shape the maturation of the
technology. NHTSA seeks comment on
portable device product cycles along
with software updating processes to
better understand the evolving
stakeholder landscape.
For the purposes of this Phase 2
proposal, an ‘‘aftermarket device’’ is
defined as a device designed to be or
reasonably expected to be installed or
integrated into a vehicle after the
vehicle is manufactured, is electrically
powered, and has one or more of the
following capabilities:
• Allows user interaction.
• Enters, sends, and/or receives
information.
• Displays information in a visual
and/or auditory manner, or
• Displays graphical images,
photographic images, and/or video.
An example of an aftermarket device
would be a non-OE head unit, such as
in-dash car audio/video systems or indash navigation systems.
NHTSA requests comments on its
proposed definitions in the proposed
Phase 2 Guidelines.
The proposed Phase 2 Guidelines
exclude several devices/device
interfaces, including the auditory-vocal
portions of a portable or aftermarket
device interface,73 device or device
functions specified by law or
73 NHTSA
recognizes that current auditory-vocal
interfaces are multi-modal and include a
combination of auditory-vocal and visual-manual
interactions. All visual-manual interactions are
subject to Phases 1 and 2 of the Distraction
Guidelines.
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
87671
government regulation, or devices
manufactured primarily for emergency
response vehicles. These exclusions
mirror those listed in the Phase 1
Guidelines for OE in-vehicle interfaces.
However, in contrast to the Phase 1
Guidelines, NHTSA believes that the
proposed Phase 2 Guidelines do not
necessarily need to be restricted by
vehicle weight and would apply to the
interfaces of portable and aftermarket
devices used in medium and heavy
vehicles (i.e., those with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000
pounds). The Phase 1 Guidelines
excluded OE in-vehicle interfaces in
these vehicles because they are different
than the interfaces in light vehicles
(GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) and
additional research would be needed to
develop guidelines for medium and
heavy vehicles. In contrast, NHTSA
does not believe that the same types of
differences, if any, exist between
portable and aftermarket devices used in
light vehicles versus those used in
heavy vehicles, and, therefore such an
exclusion is not warranted for the Phase
2 Guidelines.
The agency also seeks comment on
device interfaces that should or should
not be covered by the proposed Phase 2
Guidelines.
2. Tasks
The proposed Phase 2 Guidelines
would be applicable to the same types
of visual-manual secondary tasks
covered by the Phase 1 Guidelines,
including all non-driving-related tasks
and some driving-related tasks (as noted
earlier), specifically those that are
neither related to the safe operation and
control of the vehicle nor involve the
use of a system required by law. Table
1 of the updated Phase 1 Guidelines 74
published on September 14, 2014,
contains a non-exhaustive list of the
types of non-driving-related tasks to
which the Guidelines would be
applicable, including various
communications, entertainment, and
information tasks. This table is repeated
in Table 7 below.
74 Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0088. ‘‘Guidelines
for Reducing Visual-Manual Driver Distraction
during Interactions with Integrated, In-Vehicle,
Electronic Devices Version 1.01’’ ID: NHTSA–2014–
0088–0002. Available at https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-20140088-0002 (last accessed on 10/4/16).
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
87672
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
TABLE 7—NON-DRIVING-RELATED TASKS/DEVICES TO WHICH THESE GUIDELINES APPLY
Type of task
Task/device
Communications ........
Caller Identification, Incoming Call Management, Initiating and Terminating Phone Calls, Conference Phoning, Two-Way
Radio Communications, Paging, Address Book, Reminders, Text-Based Communications, Social Media Messaging or
Posting.
Radio (including but not limited to AM, FM, and Satellite), Pre-recorded Music Players, All Formats, Television, Video
Displays, Advertising, Internet Browsing, News, Directory Services.
Clock, Temperature.
Entertainment ............
Information .................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Like the Phase 1 Guidelines, the
Phase 2 Guidelines would not apply to
tasks performed by the driver as part of
the safe operation and control of the
vehicle, including any task related to
the proper use of a driver safety warning
system. Although the agency did not
define the term driver safety warning
system in the Phase 1 Guidelines, the
agency is including a definition in the
proposed Phase 2 Guidelines (that also
shall apply to Phase 1) because of the
wide variety of portable and aftermarket
device applications that exist and the
agency’s concern that applications with
a questionable link to safety might be
labeled as driver safety warning
systems. Accordingly, the proposed
Phase 2 Guidelines define ‘‘driver safety
warning system’’ as ‘‘a system or
application that is intended to assist the
driver in the avoidance or mitigation of
crashes.’’ An example of a system that
would fall within this definition is a
portable device application that uses the
device’s features (e.g., GPS,
accelerometer, or camera) to alert
drivers of lane departures or potential
collisions.
Finally, the Phase 2 Guidelines apply
to tasks that are clearly bounded by start
and end states as is discussed in the
Phase 1 Guidelines (see section IV.B.9
on p. 24884). Displays that continuously
report a system state like speed or fuel
economy status are unbounded and are
therefore not subject to the Phase 1 or
2 Guidelines.
75 While the recommendation is that aftermarket
devices meet the Phase 1 Guidelines, this
recommendation will be made in the Phase 2
document. Therefore, aftermarket manufacturers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
B. Overview of the Phase 2 Guidelines
In order to address the vehicle safety
problem posed by driver distraction due
to aftermarket and portable device
usage, NHTSA tentatively recommends
the following in its Phase 2 Guidelines:
• Portable device manufacturers
incorporate pairing capabilities and
Driver Mode functions into their devices
to reduce driver distraction.
• OEMs incorporate pairing
capabilities into the design of their
vehicles
• Manufacturers of aftermarket
devices meet the requirements as
specified for OE interfaces in Phase 1.75
Figure 1 depicts how the Phase 2
Guidelines apply to both portable and
aftermarket devices, including pairing
and Driver Mode configurations.
would look to the Phase 2 guidelines for
recommendations.
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
NHTSA recommends pairing a
portable device with the in-vehicle
system (i.e., OE or installed aftermarket
systems) to minimize the potential
distraction associated with operating a
visual-manual interface on a portable
device. Vehicle manufacturers and the
portable device industry are already
working together to incorporate pairing
between devices and vehicles, and the
agency hopes that the Phase 2
Guidelines will accelerate those
efforts.76 Pairing the device to the
vehicle would allow the driver to use
the built-in displays and controls.
Assuming that the vehicle conforms to
the Phase 1 Guidelines, pairing would
ensure that the visual-manual secondary
tasks performed by the driver while
driving meet the time-based, eye-glance
task acceptance criteria specified in the
Phase 1 Guidelines that is intended to
mitigate the risk of distracted driving.
Pairing would also ensure that certain
activities that would inherently interfere
with the driver’s ability to safely control
the vehicle would be locked out while
76 https://www.engadget.com/2014/10/02/apple-
carplay-comes-to-pioneer-stereos-as-spotify-addssupport/ (last accessed on 10/4/16). https://
www.engadget.com/2014/10/03/hondas-in-carconnect-system-does-android-its-own-way-handson/ (last accessed on 10/4/16).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
driving (i.e., the ‘‘per se lock outs’’
referred to in the Phase 1 Guidelines
and the proposed Phase 2 Guidelines).
Although NHTSA recommends that
pairing a portable device with the invehicle interface is the best way to
mitigate the distraction associated with
operating a visual-manual portable
device interface, the agency
acknowledges that there will be
situations when pairing does not occur,
either because the in-vehicle system
and/or portable device does not possess
the capability for pairing or because the
driver chooses not to pair with the invehicle system. In order to mitigate the
additional distraction associated with
the use of an unpaired portable device,
the agency recommends that portable
devices include a Driver Mode that,
when activated, will present an
interface that conforms with the
Phase 1 Guidelines recommendations
for electronic devices used by the driver
while driving. In particular, when a
portable device is in Driver Mode, the
device should lock out tasks that are
among the Phase 1 Guidelines per se
lock outs or do not meet Phase 1 task
acceptance criteria.
NHTSA seeks comment on this
approach and whether additional per se
lock outs are appropriate for portable
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
87673
and aftermarket devices, whether paired
with the in-vehicle system or in Driver
Mode.
NHTSA acknowledges that some
devices, such as standalone portable
navigation devices, are designed for,
and exist primarily for use in a single
context (e.g. navigation in a motor
vehicle). These devices are useful
because they package both the hardware
and a user interface in one compact
portable unit. For such a device
designed primarily for use while
driving, pairing the device with the
vehicle would not provide any benefit
since its native interface should meet
the Driver Mode recommendations and
pairing is not required. For this reason,
portable navigation devices that do not
have pairing capability would not be
expected to have a separate Driver
Mode. NHTSA requests comments on
whether the assumptions for this
recommendation are reasonable and
appropriate.
C. Pairing
1. Pairing Recommendations
The proposed Phase 2 Guidelines
recommend that vehicle manufacturers
and portable device manufacturers
should provide the necessary
mechanisms to easily enable pairing
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
EN05DE16.002</GPH>
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
87674
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
between the portable device and the
vehicle/in-vehicle system.77 In order to
reduce the potential for distraction
associated with pairing while also
encouraging drivers to pair their
devices, pairing should be an easy-tounderstand task that allows the driver to
set up the portable device to
communicate with the in-vehicle system
in the fewest number of steps possible,
even automatically if feasible. If a
portable device and vehicle pair easily,
it is less likely that a user will become
discouraged and not attempt to pair a
device with a vehicle. NHTSA
encourages all entities involved with the
engineering and design of pairing
technologies to jointly develop
compatible and efficient processes that
focus on improving the usability of
connecting a portable device with the
in-vehicle system. The proposed
Guidelines further recommend that any
required visual-manual interactions
necessary to pair the device should be
disabled while driving in order to avoid
potential driver distraction. The agency
encourages automatic pairing between
the portable device and in-vehicle
system during and after the initial setup.
In order to ensure that a paired
portable device’s functions are operated
through the in-vehicle interface, which
is intended and designed specifically for
the driving environment, the proposed
Phase 2 Guidelines recommend that the
visual interface of the portable device be
locked out when the portable device is
paired to the in-vehicle system, with the
exception of access to emergency
services and emergency notifications.
All non-emergency functions and
applications of the portable device
should be operable exclusively through
the in-vehicle system’s interface. A
paired system with a compelling user
experience and features should
discourage the need for the driver to
access or interact with the portable
device while driving. NHTSA seeks
comment on displaying and operating
all non-emergency paired device
functions through the in-vehicle
interface and whether doing so creates
unintended consequences. NHTSA also
seeks comment on how best to
accommodate passenger use of a paired
portable device.
2. Privacy and Data Sharing for Paired
Devices
The primary purpose of this
document is to address driver
distraction and vehicle safety. However,
NHTSA acknowledges that the pairing
77 For purposes of this discussion, ‘‘in-vehicle
system’’ includes both OE and aftermarket
headunits installed in a motor vehicle.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
recommendations may touch on
potential privacy concerns regarding the
possibility of data transfer, sharing, and
storage between the vehicle, device, and
off-board systems. The proposed
Guidelines do not recommend any
particular method of pairing or specify
how automakers and the portable and
aftermarket device industries should
address how information is shared and
used. The agency encourages industry to
consider how privacy risks can be
minimized as part of the development
and improvement of pairing systems.
Industry groups have begun to
address the issue of privacy as the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
and Global Automakers published a set
of principles on November 12, 2014.78
In light of these potential issues,
NHTSA seeks comment on how
information is shared between the
vehicle, device, and off-board systems
when devices are paired with the
vehicle, how the type of information
that is shared may change in the future,
how this information sharing effects
privacy, and what role the Guidelines
can and should play in addressing these
privacy issues.
3. Cybersecurity for Paired Devices
Designing portable devices so that
they can be paired with motor vehicles
must be accompanied by appropriate
cybersecurity measures. Unless such
care is taken, adding another Internetconnected device to a vehicle’s
electronics system can introduce
additional cybersecurity vulnerabilities
into a vehicle’s computer systems.
Safeguarding the traveling public
through a combination of measures
requiring and/or encouraging the
incorporation of safety features and
systems in motor vehicles and motor
vehicle equipment as well as measures
to protect the performance of those
features and systems is part of NHTSA’s
core mission. Equally important is
identifying motor vehicles or items of
motor vehicle equipment that create an
unreasonable risk of accidents occurring
or unreasonable risk of death or injury
occurring in an accident because of
deficiencies in design, construction, or
performance and requiring their recall
and remedy.
These Guidelines do not suggest or
recommend particular methods for
creating and maintaining an effective
level of cybersecurity in motor vehicles
78 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and
Association of Global Automakers (2014).
Consumer Privacy Protection Principles: Privacy
Principles for Vehicle Technologies and Services.
Retrieved from https://www.autoalliance.org/
index.cfm?objectid=CC629950-6A96-11E4866D000C296BA163 (last accessed on 10/4/16).
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
or in portable or aftermarket devices.
NHTSA expects that OEMs, portable
device manufacturers, and aftermarket
manufacturers to be proactive and take
the steps necessary to protect against
present and future motor vehicle
cybersecurity threats. We seek comment
on the continuing steps that must be
taken to ensure that pairing does not
adversely affect vehicle cybersecurity.
D. Driver Mode
Ideally, a Driver Mode would not be
necessary since NHTSA believes those
functions related to the driving task
should occur when the device is paired
with an in-vehicle system that conforms
with the Phase 1 Guidelines. However,
our data confirms what everyday
observation indicates: Many drivers
routinely use their portable device(s)
while driving. The agency believes that
over time as pairing becomes easier,
increased device pairing may help
reduce this behavior, but is unlikely to
eliminate it, because not all vehicles
will have been designed to allow pairing
and drivers may not choose to pair their
devices. The agency, therefore, believes
it is necessary to propose guidelines that
attempt to reduce the risk associated
with using an unpaired portable device
while driving. The agency believes that
the proposed Driver Mode outlined
below, which suggests that the device’s
interface follow the Phase 1 principles
to the extent possible, is the best way to
minimize the distraction posed by these
devices.
1. Driver Mode Recommendations
Driver Mode is a simplified interface
for unpaired devices that conforms to
the Phase 1 Guidelines when being used
by a person who is driving. When in
Driver Mode, the portable device should
lock out any visual-manual secondary
tasks that do not meet the Phase 1
Guidelines, either because they are per
se lockouts or because they do not meet
the eye-glance-based task acceptance
criteria using a modified version of the
Phase 1 task acceptance testing
procedures described in Section V of the
Phase 2 Guidelines.
The Phase 1 Guidelines specify two
different test options for measuring the
impact of performing a task on driving
safety and acceptance criteria for
assessing whether a task interferes
enough with driver attention to be
unsuitable for performance while
driving. Either test may be run to assess
conformance with the guidelines. 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
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
attention (eyes off the road) and crash
risk.
The first recommended test method
measures the amount of time that the
driver’s eyes are drawn away from the
roadway during the performance of the
task. The proposed Phase 2 Guidelines,
like the Phase 1 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.
NHTSA anticipates that stakeholders
(e.g., OS developers, portable device
developers, and application developers)
will work together to ensure that
applications and features on portable
devices intended for use while driving
meet the Phase 2 Guidelines. NHTSA
requests comments on how this industry
process will develop and function.
The second test method uses a visual
occlusion technique, and both the Phase
1 and proposed Phase 2 Guidelines
recommend that, when tested with this
method, devices be designed so that
tasks can be completed in a series of 1.5second glances with a cumulative time
of not more than 12 seconds.79 Both of
these tests are part of the Phase 1
NHTSA Guidelines and the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance)
guidelines.
Detailed discussions of how these
thresholds were developed are
contained in the proposed Phase 1
Guidelines notice 80 and the final Phase
1 Guidelines notice.81 In summary,
glances away from the forward road
scene greater than 2 seconds at a time
are associated with an increased risk of
a crash or near crash. The total eyes off
road time criterion is based on the
principle that a visual-manual
secondary task performed while driving
should not exceed that associated with
a baseline reference task (in this case,
the manual tuning of a radio). NHTSA
selected radio tuning as the reference
task 82 and determined that the 85th
percentile total eyes off road time
(TEORT) associated with radio tuning is
12 seconds. Recent testing conducted by
79 As explained in detail in the Phase 1
Guidelines notices, the 1.5-shutter open time
periods used in the occlusion method correspond
to 2 second off-road glances.
80 77 FR 11199 (Feb. 24, 2012).
81 78 FR 24817 (Apr. 26, 2013).
82 The concept of a reference task and the use of
radio tuning originated with the Alliance
Guidelines, 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
the agency to assess the proposed
acceptance criteria for both the
simulator and occlusion procedures
supports the use of 2-second individual
glance duration criterion and a12second TEORT criterion (i.e., a ‘‘2/12
Rule’’).83
NHTSA has tentatively concluded
that because the crash risk associated
with distraction caused by vehicle OE
interfaces and portable devices is borne
out of similar visual-manual interaction
between the driver and the device, the
Phase 2 Guidelines should apply the
Phase 1 Guidelines to the proposed
Driver Mode. In other words, because a
driver would be diverting his or her
attention away from the road to an area
within reach and view of the driver
compartment, a recommendation for a
portable device in Driver Mode should
be similar to that of in-vehicle systems.
In addition to the recommendations
regarding per se lock outs and the task
acceptance criteria, the proposed Phase
2 Guidelines recommend that when in
Driver Mode, portable device interfaces
conform to the following Phase 1
Guidelines recommendations:
• No Obstruction of View
• Easy to See and Reach
• Sound Level
• Single-Handed Operation
• Interruptibility
• Device Response Time
• Disablement
• Distinguish Tasks of Functions not
intended for use while driving
• Device Status
Due to the differences between
integrated OE interfaces and portable
devices, the proposed Phase 2
Guidelines do not include the Phase 1
recommendations related to maximum
downward viewing angle, lateral
position of visual displays, and
minimum size of displayed text
information. These recommendations
relate to the placement of the interface
or the size of the interface text given
that placement. Because the placement
of a portable device in a vehicle is
determined by the owner or driver of
the vehicle rather than the device
manufacturer or software designer, the
agency has tentatively concluded that,
as it cannot know for certain where,
how, or if the device will be mounted,
these recommendations are not
appropriate for portable devices.
Despite this fact, the agency still
believes it is necessary to propose a
83 Ranney, T., Baldwin, S., Smith, L., Martin, J.,
& Mazzae, E. (2013). Driver Behavior During VisualManual Secondary Task Performance: Occlusion
Method Versus Simulated Driving (DOT HS 811
726). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
87675
repeatable test that would allow the
agency to determine what devices
conform with the proposed Driver
Mode. Such a test, even if it does not
reflect how all drivers use portable
devices in all circumstances, would,
nevertheless, provide the agency with a
benchmark to measure conformance
across a wide variety of different
devices. The agency proposes that
manufacturers test unpaired portable
devices, including those in Driver
Mode, in a location within a vehicle
that, to the greatest extent possible,
conforms to the recommendations
enumerated in Phase 1 (i.e. no
obstruction of view, easy to see and
reach) and do not result in the portable
device interfering with airbag
deployment zones or safe operation of
the vehicle controls. The agency
believes that this is a repeatable means
to address Driver Mode conformance,
which may be representative of how the
device may be mounted in the vehicle
by a driver. The agency acknowledges
that some drivers may not mount their
portable device and, instead use it while
holding it in their hand. However, the
agency does not believe it is possible or
desirable to create a repeatable test
based on in-hand use.
The agency requests comments on
differences between vehicle OE
interfaces and portable devices.
Specifically, NHTSA would like to
know what, if any testing methods,
stakeholders currently use (or suggest
using) to address the varying
placements of a portable device inside
an automobile.
The Phase 1 Guidelines per se lock
outs include activities that are
discouraged by public policy and, in
some instances, prohibited by Federal
regulation or State law (e.g., entering or
displaying text messages), and activities
identified in industry driver distraction
guidelines that NHTSA agrees are likely
to distract drivers significantly (e.g.,
automatically scrolling text). The per se
lock outs also address 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
(e.g., displaying video or certain
images). Below is a detailed description
of the per se lock outs taken from the
Phase 1 Guidelines: 84
84 78 FR 24817 (Apr. 26, 2013), available at
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/04/
26/2013-09883/visual-manual-nhtsa-driverdistraction-guidelines-for-in-vehicle-electronicdevices (last accessed on 10/4/16).
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
87676
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
• Device functions and tasks not
intended to be used by a driver while
driving.
• Manual Text Entry. Manual text
entry by the driver for the purpose of
text-based messaging, other
communication, or internet browsing.
• Displaying Video. Displaying (or
permitting the display of) video
including, but not limited to, videobased entertainment and video-based
communications including video
phoning and videoconferencing.
• Exceptions: 85
• Map displays. The visual
presentation of dynamic map and/or
location information in a twodimensional 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.
• Displaying Images. Displaying (or
permitting the display of) non-video
graphical or photographic images.
• Exceptions:
• 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.
• Static graphical and photographic
images displayed for the purpose of
aiding a driver to efficiently make a
selection in the context of a nondriving-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.
• Internationally standardized
symbols and icons, as well as
TrademarkTM and Registered® symbols,
are not considered static graphical or
photographic images.
85 Certain exceptions to the video per se lock out
are not listed here because it is unlikely that a
portable or aftermarket device’s interface would
include that type of functionality (e.g., rearview
images used to aid the driver performing a
maneuver in which the vehicle’s transmission is in
reverse gear). However, all of the display of video
per se lock out exceptions listed in the Phase 1
Guidelines would also be applicable to portable and
aftermarket devices.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
• Automatically Scrolling Text. The
display of scrolling (either horizontally
or vertically) text that is moving at a
pace not controlled by the driver.
• Displaying Text to Be Read. The
visual presentation 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
• Exception:
• 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 is determined by the eyeglance-based acceptance tests.
The agency requests comment on the
applicability of the Phase 1 per se lock
outs to portable devices. Are additional
exceptions needed for certain portable
device tasks? Are there additional
portable device tasks that should be
included in the per se lock outs if the
device has a Phase 1 Guidelinesconforming Driver Mode interface?
2. Driver Mode Activation
The Phase 2 Guidelines’ proposed
recommendations regarding the
activation of the Driver Mode would
differ significantly from the Phase 1
Guideline’s recommendations in terms
of when OE in-vehicle devices should
lock out certain tasks and meet certain
other device recommendations.
In particular, the Phase 1 Guidelines
recommend that OE in-vehicle devices
should lock out certain tasks from
performance by the driver while
‘‘driving.’’ ‘‘Driving’’ is defined as
whenever a vehicle’s means of
propulsion is activated unless the
vehicle’s transmission is in the ‘‘Park’’
position or, for manual transmission
vehicles, the vehicle’s transmission is in
the ‘‘neutral’’ position, the parking
brake is engaged, and the vehicle’s
speed is less than 5 mph.
This definition was based on
definitions used in various statutes,
regulations, and Executive Orders
related to distracted driving,86 which
defined driving as operating a vehicle
on an active roadway with the motor
running, including while temporarily
86 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(9)(A); 49 CFR 392.80,
Executive Order 13513, ‘‘Federal Leadership on
Reducing Text Messaging While Driving,’’ October
1, 2009; MAP–21 Public Law 112–114, 126 Stat. 405
(July 6, 2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
stationary because of traffic, traffic
control devices, etc. The agency was
also concerned that limiting ‘‘driving’’
to when a vehicle is traveling above a
certain speed could result in drivers
performing distracting tasks at low
speeds, creating an increased risk of a
crash at signal- or sign-controlled
intersections and in traffic. Accordingly,
by using existing definitions as a
foundation, the agency developed a
definition that is based on information
known to, or able to be detected by
vehicle systems: Transmission position,
vehicle speed, and the status of the
parking brake.
In analyzing how to apply the Phase
1 Guidelines to portable and aftermarket
devices, the agency has determined
activation of Driver Mode is dependent
upon the technologies and features
present, as well as the level of
communication between a portable/
aftermarket device and a vehicle. Based
on these considerations, the agency has
developed two alternative methods for
activating Driver Mode.
The first option, and the one
encouraged by the agency, is automatic
activation, meaning that Driver Mode
automatically engages within a
reasonable period of time when the
portable device by itself or in
conjunction with the vehicle
distinguishes that it is being used by a
driver while driving. If desired, the user
would have the ability to deactivate or
opt-out of automatic engagement of
Driver Mode. Like the ‘‘driving’’
condition described in the Phase 1
Guidelines, this definition is based on
information (e.g., vehicle speed) that
can be determined by the portable
device if it has the appropriate sensors
like GPS to measure the speed of the
motor vehicle, or if the information is
transmitted from the vehicle to the
portable device. The Phase 1 definition
of driving may be suitable if the
automatic distinction technology can
also access speed or transmission state
information directly from the vehicle.
Examples of automatic distinction
technologies that had direct connection
to the vehicle, and therefore could have
access to vehicle speed or transmission
state, were presented at NHTSA’s Phase
2 Public Meeting.87 The agency requests
comment on whether the final
guidelines should include specific
triggering factors or a specific timeframe
for Driver Mode to automatically
87 Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0137, ‘‘Driver
Distraction Guidelines (Phase 2) for Portable and
After-Market Devices Public Meeting Agenda and
Presentations’’ ID: NHTSA–2013–0137–0004.
Available at https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NHTSA-2013-0137 (last accessed
on 10/4/16).
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
activate, such as the vehicle speed (e.g.,
a speed that can reasonably be
attributed to a motor vehicle as opposed
to non-motorized transportation) at
which an automatic activation would
engage, as well as other potential
triggering factors. Additionally, NHTSA
requests comment on the 5 mph speed
threshold applicable to the definition of
‘‘driving’’ for vehicles without a ‘‘Park’’
position (e.g. manual transmission
vehicles).
The agency recognizes that automatic
activation technologies are still in the
process of being refined, and, without
the ability to reliably detect whether the
device user is the driver or a passenger,
may be overly annoying to device users.
Accordingly, the agency is proposing a
second option, voluntary activation,
meaning that the Driver Mode is
activated in a simple manner by the
user. In other words, under this option,
Driver Mode is manually activated by
the driver rather than automatically.
The agency expects technologies that
support automatic Driver Mode
activation to be implemented as soon as
practicable. In order to provide
flexibility, NHTSA has not included any
additional specific recommendations on
how activation of Driver Mode should
be designed. The agency requests
comment on whether additional
specification should be included in the
final guidelines.
Recognizing that some drivers may
choose not to activate Driver Mode, and
accordingly, not reduce the distraction
potential of the portable device, the
agency foresees driver-initiated
activation being a temporary option in
the Phase 2 Guidelines until driverpassenger distinction technology is
more developed and widely available.
The agency expects such technology to
be implemented as soon as practicable.
The agency recognizes the inherent
limitations of a driver-activated Driver
Mode and seeks comment on alternative
approaches to Driver Mode activation as
a temporary option until driverpassenger distinction technology is
implemented.
E. Aftermarket Devices
The US DOT’s Blueprint for ending
Distracted Driving specified that
aftermarket electronic devices would be
addressed in NHTSA’s Phase 2
Guidelines. In line with the Blueprint,
the Phase 2 Guidelines propose to make
recommendations for aftermarket
devices. Tentatively, the agency
concludes that recommendations
applicable to OE manufacturers in the
Phase 1 Guidelines shall be
recommendations to aftermarket
electronic device manufacturers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
Aftermarket devices include
communication, entertainment, or
navigation devices that are designed to
be or would be reasonably expected to
be installed or integrated after the
vehicle is manufactured, are often
incorporated into existing OE slots in
the dashboard or are permanently
affixed to the top surface of the
dashboard. Examples of aftermarket
devices include in-dash car stereos/
receivers and in-dash navigation
devices. While aftermarket devices are
addressed in the same guideline
document as portable devices, there are
notable differences between portable
and aftermarket devices. As aftermarket
devices are typically hardwired into a
vehicle, they are not likely to be moved
in and out of a vehicle like portable
devices. Additionally, because there is a
physical link between an aftermarket
device and the vehicle, there is no need
for any pairing recommendation, as the
vehicle and aftermarket device are
linked by virtue of installation.
With regard to placement within the
vehicle, the installation location of an
aftermarket device is likely to be either
on the dashboard or in a vacated spot
in the dash previously occupied by an
OE interface. NHTSA has tentatively
concluded that because the crash risk
associated with distraction caused by
OE interfaces and aftermarket devices is
borne out of similar visual-manual
interaction from the same location in a
vehicle, the Phase 2 Guidelines should
apply the Phase 1 guidelines to
aftermarket devices. In many cases,
aftermarket devices serve as
replacement devices for vehicle OE
systems, replacing the function of OE
units while occupying the same location
within a vehicle. NHTSA is seeking
comment on this approach.
IV. Expected Effects of the Phase 2
Guidelines
NHTSA’s overall expectation for the
Phase 2 Distraction Guidelines is to
provide a safety framework for
developers of portable and aftermarket
electronic devices and applications to
use when developing their systems that
will reduce driver distraction through
two specific technological means. First,
NHTSA envisions easy pairing solutions
for users of portable devices in their
vehicles that will result in accelerated
growth and acceptance of pairing,
leading to pairing implementations
throughout entire vehicle lineups and
trim levels. Pairing solutions should
become seamless, thereby fostering
highly efficient interactions between the
drivers, portable devices, and in-vehicle
electronics systems. Second, NHTSA
expects these guidelines will encourage
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
87677
the further growth and innovation of
automatic driver distinction
technologies that will enable more
practical and pervasive Driver Mode
implementations for portable devices in
unpaired scenarios. The development of
automatic driver distinction
technologies and consequently Driver
Mode interfaces should result in
reduced distraction when used by
drivers while driving. Again, the
agency’s goal is that information
available to the driver inside the vehicle
will not cause an unsafe level of
distraction to the driver (either by
functions being locked out or
conforming to the applicable Phase 1
Guidelines’ 2/12 performance criteria).
In addition, NHTSA expects that
through these guidelines, automotive
OEMs, application developers, portable
and aftermarket device manufacturers,
operating system providers, wireless
carriers, and all involved stakeholders
will jointly work together with the
primary goal of reducing fatalities,
injuries, and crashes attributable to the
use of portable and aftermarket devices
by drivers. NHTSA expects that the
proposed guidelines will serve as a
framework for stakeholders to continue
developing a variety of technologies and
designs that reduce visual-manual
distraction while driving. Ultimately,
these proposed Guidelines will raise
awareness of driver distraction and
elevate vehicle safety to a top priority
within the product development
processes for these wide-ranging
organizations.
A. Estimated Time for Conformance
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. Portable and
aftermarket device manufacturers,
application developers, and vehicle
manufacturers are not required to meet
the NHTSA Guidelines.
NHTSA stated that it anticipated
vehicle manufacturers would
incorporate Phase 1 conformance into
their normally scheduled production
cycles, and therefore NHTSA anticipates
seeing production vehicles that conform
to Phase 1 Guidelines no sooner than
three years from the publication of
Phase 1. NHTSA recognizes that the
production cycles for portable devices
are dramatically shorter than for
vehicles; therefore NHTSA seeks
comment on reasonable conformance
testing timing for Phase 2. We believe 16
months is appropriate given the speed at
which technology changes and the time
needed to benchmark product against
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
87678
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
the final guidelines. We understand that
a portable device’s ability to pair with
a vehicle inherently requires some
coordination with vehicle OEMs. We
request comment on the appropriateness
of this timeframe.
The agency also notes that the
Guidelines are just one of many efforts
by both government and industry to
address the distracted driving problem.
The NHTSA Distraction Plan 88
describes the Agency’s comprehensive
approach to the distraction problem.
NHTSA has approached the driver
distraction problem from multiple
fronts, from a better understanding of
the issue of distraction by improving the
quality of data on the incidence,
prevalence, and crash risk from
distraction, to public service messages
(e.g., ‘‘One text or call could wreck it
all’’), to working with states on
enforcement programs and improving
laws, to producing the Distraction
Guidelines. Industry has also worked
hard to promote anti-driver-distraction
awareness and message campaigns, as
well as working toward guidance and
tools for less distracting devices and
built-in user interfaces. NHTSA’s
Guidelines are an important
complementary effort against driver
distraction.
B. NHTSA Monitoring of Portable and
Aftermarket Device Conformance With
the Guidelines
NHTSA’s Office of Vehicle Safety
Research intends to perform future
monitoring to assess conformance to our
Driver Distraction Guidelines. Whereas
the details of this monitoring have yet
to be determined, we plan to test actual
production vehicles, and production
portable and aftermarket devices.
Vehicles, portable and aftermarket
devices, and applications will be
selected for such monitoring so that
they represent a representative portion
of makes and models available for
public consumption. NHTSA envisions
that these test results would be made
available to the public.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
V. Authority To Issue the Phase 2
Guidelines
The agency’s authority to issue the
voluntary, non-binding 89 Phase 2
88 NHTSA. (2010). Overview of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Driver
Distraction Program, (DOT HS 811 299). Available
at https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_
driving/pdf/811299.pdf (last accessed on 10/4/16).
89 See Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
Act, Public Law 114–94, 24406 (2015) (‘‘No
guidelines issued by the Secretary with respect to
motor vehicle safety shall confer any rights on any
person, State, or locality, nor shall operate to bind
the Secretary or any person to the approach
recommended in such guidelines’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
Guidelines is clear under both the
Highway Safety Act and the Vehicle
Safety Act.90 NHTSA’s statutory
mandate is to reduce traffic accidents
and deaths and injuries resulting from
traffic accidents.91 To carry out this
mandate, NHTSA is authorized to
conduct and act on both behavioral
safety and vehicle safety research.
Congress directed the Secretary of
Transportation, through amendments to
the Highway Safety Act, to assist and
cooperate with private industry (among
others) to increase highway safety.92
Additionally, the Vehicle Safety Act
states NHTSA ‘‘shall conduct research,
development, and testing on any area or
aspect of motor vehicle safety necessary
to carry out this chapter.’’ 93 More
specifically, NHTSA ‘‘shall . . .
conduct motor vehicle safety research,
development, and testing programs and
activities, including activities related to
new and emerging technologies that
impact or may impact motor vehicle
safety.’’ 94
By issuing these Guidelines, NHTSA
seeks to fulfill its duties under both the
Highway Safety Act and the Vehicle
Safety Act. The foundation for these
Guidelines is the agency research on
distraction caused by portable and
aftermarket devices, and our evaluation
of research from other experts. The
agency believes that today’s guidelines
are an effective way of expressing
NHTSA’s research conclusions.
Encapsulating and publishing research
results in the form of recommendations,
best practices, or guidelines is not novel
90 We note that questions have been raised by,
among others, CTA and CTIA concerning NHTSA’s
authority to regulate portable devices and
applications. Although not at issue in these
voluntary guidelines, the agency points out that it
has such authority to the extent these technologies
function as ‘‘motor vehicle equipment’’ as defined
by the Vehicle Safety Act. That said, NHTSA does
not have any current plans to develop such
regulations and, as we explain throughout, the
guidelines proposed today are not regulations, but
are rather voluntary and non-binding.
91 49 U.S.C. 30101 (‘‘The purpose of this chapter
is to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries
resulting from traffic accidents. Therefore it is
necessary—(1) to prescribe motor vehicle safety
standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle
equipment in interstate commerce; and (2) to carry
out needed safety research and development.’’).
Delegated to NHTSA at 49 CFR 1.95.
92 23 U.S.C. 401. Delegated to NHTSA at 49 CFR
1.95.
93 49 U.S.C. 30181. Delegated to NHTSA at 49
CFR 1.95.
94 49 U.S.C. 30182 (‘‘Powers and duties’’).
Sections 30181–30182 were added to the Safety Act
by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP–21), Public Law 112–141, 31204
(2012). Prior to this, the Safety Act provisions
authorizing NHTSA’s motor vehicle safety research
and development were contained in § 30168. MAP–
21 deleted § 30168 as redundant material. See
MAP–21 § 31204. Delegated to NHTSA at 49 CFR
1.95.
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
for this agency.95 Further, these
Guidelines are a way for NHTSA to
provide private industry with assistance
on practical ways of applying the
existing research to their portable
application/device designs so as to
encourage their customers to use these
devices and applications appropriately
when in the motor vehicle. Moreover,
by releasing these guidelines for public
comment, we are cooperating with
private industry and other members of
the public toward increasing highway
safety in this important area.
Additionally, we note that in recently
enacting the Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation Act,96 Congress included
a provision regarding the agency’s
ability to issue non-binding guidance.
While the provision provides that
‘‘[n]othing in the subsection shall be
construed to confer any authority upon
or negate any authority of the Secretary
to issue guidelines under this chapter,’’
we note that the only such guidelines
that the agency has issued or announced
plans to issue in recent years are those
relating to distraction.
As NHTSA has stated in various
agency documents, the guidelines for
portable devices are a crucial part of a
comprehensive, multi-pronged effort to
address driver distraction. Taking a
comprehensive approach that addresses
behavioral, technological, and
environmental risk factors is standard
practice in the injury prevention field.97
While the states’ achievements in
addressing the behavioral aspects of
distracted driving are commendable, we
believe more needs to be done to
address the other two types of risk
factors. As we mentioned earlier, the
2014 statistics show that, taking account
of all different types of distractions, a
substantial portion (10%) of all fatal
crashes still involves at least one
distracted driver. Further, a substantial
portion of distraction-affected fatal
crashes (13%) involve cell phone use.
NHTSA estimates that 404 lives were
lost in cell phone-involved fatal crashes
in that year. This represents 1.2 percent
of traffic fatalities for that year.
Accordingly, we believe that private
industry could effectively complement
the state efforts by addressing the
technological risk factors related to
portable application/device use and
95 See, e.g., Effectiveness and Acceptance of
Enhanced Seat Belt Reminder Systems:
Characteristics of Optimal Reminder Systems Final
Report, DOT HS 811 097, § 5.4 (‘‘Recommended
System Characteristics’’) (2009).
96 Public Law 114–94, 24406 (2015).
97 The interrelationship of the elements of this
practice is graphically depicted in the well-known
analytical and planning tool known as the Haddon
Matrix.
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
driving. Furthermore, the relationship
between portable devices/applications
and driver distraction makes it
incumbent upon the US DOT to utilize
NHTSA’s safety expertise to assist
private industry in understanding and
addressing issues related to the effects
of portable application/device design on
driver behavior. The contribution of
these devices to driver distraction is an
important and growing motor vehicle
safety challenge. However,
manufacturers of these products
generally do not have motor vehicle
safety expertise, or do not design their
products with full knowledge of the
potential effects on driving, especially
those devices designed for general use,
rather than specifically for use while
driving. In developing these guidelines
in consultation with industry and the
public, NHTSA is using its expertise
regarding the variety of factors 98 that
adversely affect driver performance to
assist private industry in improving
portable devices/applications in ways
that increase highway safety by making
it easier for the driver to avoid engaging
in distracting behaviors.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
VI. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit
comments?
Your comments must be written and
in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your
comments.
Your comments should not be more
than 15 pages long. (See 49 CFR 553.21.)
We established this limit to encourage
you to write your primary comments in
a concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents
to your comments. There is no limit on
the length of the attachments.
Comments may be submitted to the
docket electronically by logging onto the
Docket Management System Web site at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
You may also submit two copies of
your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at
the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
Please note that pursuant to the Data
Quality Act, in order for substantive
data to be relied upon and used by the
agency, it must meet the information
quality standards set forth in the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) and
US DOT Data Quality Act guidelines.
Accordingly, we encourage you to
98 In addition to distraction, these factors include
problems like fatigue, sleepiness, and intoxication.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
consult the guidelines in preparing your
comments. OMB’s guidelines may be
accessed at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. The US
DOT’s guidelines may be accessed at
https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/
rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/
statistical_policy_and_research/data_
quality_guidelines/html/
guidelines.html.
How can I be sure that my comments
were received?
If you wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your
comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope
containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by
mail.
How do I submit confidential business
information?
If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, you
should submit three copies of your
complete submission, including the
information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you
have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket
Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a
comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business
information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR part
512.)
Will the agency consider late
comments?
We will consider all comments that
Docket Management receives before the
close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above under
DATES. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments that Docket
Management receives after that date. If
a comment is received too late for us to
consider in developing the final
guidelines, we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for
future guidelines.
How can I read the comments submitted
by other people?
You may read the comments received
by Docket Management at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The
hours of the Docket are indicated above
in the same location. You may also see
the comments on the Internet. To read
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
87679
the comments on the Internet, go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for accessing the
docket.
Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue
to file relevant information in the
Docket as it becomes available. Further,
some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you
periodically check the Docket for new
material.
VII. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)
Under the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), all Federal
agencies and departments must use
technical standards that are developed
or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, using such technical
standards as a means to carry out policy
objectives or activities determined by
the agencies and departments, except
when use of such a voluntary consensus
standard would be inconsistent with the
law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, such as SAE
International (SAE). The NTTAA directs
agencies to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the agency
decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
As part of the Phase 1 Guidelines,
NHTSA identified a number of
voluntary consensus standards related
to distracted driving. After careful
consideration, the agency incorporated
several of these standards into the test
methods in the Phase 1 Guidelines: ISO
International Standard 15008:2003,
‘‘Road vehicles—Ergonomic aspects of
transport information and control
systems—Specifications and
compliance procedures for in-vehicle
visual presentation’’; ISO International
Standard 16673:2007(E), ‘‘Road
Vehicles—Ergonomic Aspects of
Transport Information and Control
Systems—Occlusion Method to Assess
Visual Demand due to the use of InVehicle Systems’’; and multiple
versions of SAE Recommended Practice
J941, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Drivers’ Eye
Locations,’’ including SAE J941 (June
1992), SAE J941 (June 1997), SAE J941
(September 2002), SAE J941 (October
2008), and SAE J941 (March 2010).
Because the proposed Phase 2
Guidelines involve the use of the Phase
1 Guidelines test procedure, with
several modifications, as described in
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
87680
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
detail above, these standards are, by
extension, included by reference in the
Phase 2 Guidelines.
The agency requests comment on any
other voluntary consensus standards
appropriate for use in these Guidelines.
Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver
Distraction Guidelines for Portable and
Aftermarket Devices (Phase 2
Guidelines)
I. Purpose
The purpose of the NHTSA driver
distraction guidelines is to reduce the
number of motor vehicle crashes and
the resulting deaths and injuries that
occur due to a driver being distracted
from the primary driving task while
performing secondary activities with a
portable or aftermarket device within
the vehicle.
Phase 2 extends and tailors the
recommendations specified in the Phase
1 Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver
Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle
Electronic Devices (henceforth referred
to as ‘‘Phase 1 Guidelines’’) to cover
portable and aftermarket devices. These
Guidelines are presented as an aid to
vehicle manufacturers, portable and
aftermarket device manufacturers,
developers, carriers, and application
developers in designing products that
discourage unsafe driver distraction
resulting from use of the devices.
Adherence to these guidelines is
voluntary and conformance with them
is not required.
A. Driver Responsibilities
These Guidelines are meant to reduce
the potential distraction associated with
portable and aftermarket device
interfaces. A portable or aftermarket
device’s conformance with these
Guidelines does not mean that the
device is safe to use while driving. It
remains the driver’s responsibility to
ensure the safe operation of the vehicle
under all operating conditions and to
comply with all traffic laws, including
those that ban texting and/or the use of
hand-held devices while driving.
II. Scope
A. Devices and Interfaces
1. General Device and Interface
Applicability. These Guidelines are
applicable to the visual-manual portions
of a portable or aftermarket device’s
human-machine interface. These
Guidelines are applicable to device
interfaces regardless of the class or size
of the vehicles in which the portable or
aftermarket devices may be used.
2. Exclusions.
These Guidelines are not applicable
to:
a. The auditory-vocal portions of a
portable or aftermarket device’s humanmachine interface.
b. A device manufactured primarily
for use in one of the following:
1. Ambulances
2. Firefighting vehicles
3. Military vehicles
4. Vehicles manufactured for use by the
United States Government or a State
or local government for law
enforcement, or
5. Vehicles manufactured for other
emergency uses as prescribed by
regulation by the Secretary of
Transportation.
c. A device or device function,
control, and/or display specified by
Federal, State, or local law or regulation.
B. Tasks
1. General Task Applicability. These
Guidelines are applicable to the same
types of tasks covered by the Phase 1
Guidelines, including all non-drivingrelated tasks and some driving-related
tasks. Table 1 contains a non-exhaustive
list of the types of non-driving-related
tasks to which these Guidelines are
applicable.
TABLE 1—NON-DRIVING-RELATED TASKS/DEVICES TO WHICH THESE GUIDELINES APPLY
Type of task
Task/device
Communications ........
Caller Identification, Incoming Call Management, Initiating and Terminating Phone Calls, Conference Phoning, Two-Way
Radio Communications, Paging, Address Book, Reminders, Text-Based Communications, Social Media Messaging or
Posting.
Radio (including but not limited to AM, FM, Internet, and Satellite), Pre-recorded Music Players, All Formats, Television,
Video Displays, Advertising, Internet Browsing, News, Directory Services.
Display and other information settings and preferences.
Entertainment ............
Information .................
These Guidelines are also applicable
to driving-related tasks that are neither
related to the safe operation and control
of the vehicle nor involve the use of a
system required by law. Examples of
driving-related tasks to which these
Guidelines are applicable include:
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
1. Driver Information functions
2. Route navigation functions.
2. Exclusions. These Guidelines are
not applicable to the driving-related
tasks that are performed by the driver as
part of the safe operation and control of
the vehicle, including any task relating
to the proper use of a driver safety
warning system (e.g., lane departure
warning and forward collision warning
systems). These include applications for
portable and aftermarket devices that
assist the driver in the mitigation and
avoidance of crashes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
III. Definitions
A. Definitions From the Phase 1
Guidelines
The following terms are defined in the
Phase 1 Guidelines, and have the same
meaning in these Guidelines:
1. Device means all components that
a driver uses to perform secondary tasks
(i.e., tasks other than the primary task of
safe operation and control of the
vehicle); whether stand-alone or
integrated into another device.
2. Distraction means the diversion of
a driver’s attention from activities
critical for safe operation and control of
a vehicle to a competing activity.
3. Driving means whenever the
vehicle’s means of propulsion (engine
and/or motor) is activated unless one of
the following conditions is met:
a. For a vehicle equipped with a
transmission with a ‘‘Park’’ position—
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The vehicle’s transmission is in the
‘‘Park’’ position.
b. For a vehicle equipped with a
transmission without a ‘‘Park’’
position—All three of the following
conditions are met:
i. The vehicle’s parking brake is
engaged, and
ii. 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
iii. The vehicle’s speed is less than 5
mph.
4. Function means an individual
purpose which the device is designed to
fulfill. A device may have one or more
functions.
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
5. Interaction means an input by a
driver to a device, either at the driver’s
initiative or as a response to displayed
information. Interactions include
control inputs and data inputs
(information that a driver sends or
receives from the device that is not
intended to control the device).
Depending on the type of task and the
goal, interactions may be elementary or
more complex. For the visual-manual
interfaces covered by this version of
these Guidelines, interactions are
restricted to physical (manual or visual)
actions.
6. Lock Out means the disabling of
one or more functions or features of a
device so that the related task cannot be
performed by the driver while driving.
7. Manual Text Entry means manually
inputting individual alphanumeric
characters into an electronic device. For
the purposes of these Guidelines, digitbased phone dialing is not considered
manual text entry.
B. Additional Definitions
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
1. Aftermarket Device means a Device
that is designed to be or can reasonably
be expected to be installed or integrated
into a vehicle after the vehicle is
manufactured, is electrically powered,
and has one or more of the following
capabilities:
a. Allows user interaction;
b. Enters, sends, and/or receives
information;
c. Enables communication with other
people, devices, or machines;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
d. Displays information in a visual
and/or auditory manner; or
e. Displays graphical images,
photographic images, and/or video.
2. Application, or App, means a
specialized software program that is
installed on an OEM, portable or
aftermarket device.
3. Driver Mode means a simplified
user interface for an unpaired portable
device that is designed for operation by
a driver while driving.
4. Driver safety warning system means
a system or application that is intended
to assist the driver in the avoidance or
mitigation of crashes.
5. Human-Machine Interface (HMI)
means the input and output
mechanisms that mediate the
interactivity between an electronic
system and human operator. User
Interface (UI) is another commonly used
term for HMI.
6. In-Vehicle System means an OEM
or aftermarket system that is
permanently installed.
7. PAD means a portable or
aftermarket device.
8. Paired means integrated,
connected, or coupled to an in-vehicle
system’s visual display, audio system,
and/or controls through either wired or
wireless connection methods so that the
in-vehicle system has control over the
portable device’s prioritization,
manipulation, and the presentation of
information that originates from both
local and/or off-board sources.
9. Portable Device means a device that
can reasonably be expected to be
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
87681
brought into a vehicle on a trip-by-trip
basis and to be used by a driver while
driving, that is electrically powered, and
that has one or more of the following
capabilities:
a. Allows user interaction
b. Enters, sends, and/or receives
information
c. Displays information in a visual and/
or auditory manner, or
d. Displays graphical images,
photographic images, and/or video
IV. Device Interface Recommendations
A. Overview of Device Interface
Recommendations
Figure 2 below is a flow diagram that
summarizes the overall
recommendations for both portable and
aftermarket devices. For the Driver
Mode recommendation, the diagram
depicts the preferred automatic
activation with the recognition that
driver distinction technology is not
currently available in a product-level
state. When the distinction technology
matures to an implementable state,
NHTSA strongly recommends that it be
applied to managing the interaction of
unpaired portable devices. Manual
activation of Driver Mode by the driver,
also depicted in Figure 2, is NHTSA’s
temporary recommendation until the
preferred automatic activation
configuration is available. For the
remainder of this section, the
recommendations for aftermarket and
portable devices are presented
separately.
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
87682
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
Installed aftermarket devices should
meet the requirements as specified for
OE interfaces in the Phase 1 Guidelines.
C. Portable Devices Should Be Paired
1. Ease of Pairing
Vehicle manufacturers and portable
device manufacturers should provide
the necessary mechanisms to enable
pairing between the portable device and
in-vehicle system. Pairing should be an
easy-to-understand task that allows the
driver to set up their portable device
with their in-vehicle system with the
fewest number of steps possible.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
2. Disablement of Pairing Process
If the initial or subsequent pairing
process between the portable device and
in-vehicle system requires visualmanual interaction by the driver, the
initial process of pairing should be
disabled while driving.
3. Portable Device Interface Lock Outs
While Paired
Portable device control input means
should be locked out when the portable
device is paired to the in-vehicle system
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
and Driver mode on the device is
activated. The functions and
applications on the portable device
should be operable exclusively through
the in-vehicle system’s interface with
the exception of accessing emergency
services and messages.
4. Emergency Services, Alerts, and
Notifications
In the event that emergency services
are required, access through the locked
out paired portable device interface
should be quick and easily accessible
for the driver. Along with access to
emergency services, the receiving of
emergency notifications and alerts as
text messages should be allowable for
display on the paired portable device
interface. All emergency messaging and
alert services should follow the standard
protocol as specified by the Wireless
Emergency Alerts (WEA) system which
is managed by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC)
and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA).
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
D. Portable Devices Should Incorporate
Driver Mode for Unpaired Use
1. Driver Mode
Portable devices should have a Driver
Mode that consists of a simplified
interface that is available to the driver
when the device is unpaired, either
because the in-vehicle system and/or
portable device does not possess the
capability for pairing or because the
driver chooses not to pair with the invehicle system. However, a portable
device designed primarily for use while
driving and whose native interface
design conforms to the Phase 1
Guidelines recommendations can be
considered to essentially always be in
driver mode and therefore would not
warrant a separate mode for use while
driving.
The Driver Mode interface should
conform to the Phase 1 Guidelines for
electronic devices used by the driver
while driving. Specifically, while in
Driver Mode, the portable device should
adhere to the per se lock out tasks listed
in sections V.F.1 through V.F.6 of the
Phase 1 Guidelines.
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
EN05DE16.003</GPH>
B. Aftermarket Devices
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 233 / Monday, December 5, 2016 / Notices
1. Device functions and tasks not
intended to be used by a driver
while driving
2. Manual text entry
3. Displaying video
4. Displaying images
5. Automatically scrolling text
6. Displaying text to be read
Driver Mode should also lock out any
non-driving-related task or drivingrelated task that does not conform to
one of the task acceptance methods in
Section VI of these Guidelines. The
portable device should also conform to
the following subsections of the Phase 1
Guidelines Section V:
A. No Obstruction of View
B. Easy to See and Reach
F. Per Se Lock Outs (listed in previous
paragraph)
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
2. Emergency Services, Alerts, and
Notifications
In the event that emergency services
are required, access through the portable
device Driver Mode interface should be
quick and easily accessible for the user.
Along with access to emergency
services, the receiving of emergency
notifications and alerts as text messages
should be allowable for display on the
Driver Mode interface. All emergency
messaging and alert services shall
follow the standard protocol as
specified by the WEA system which is
managed by the FCC and the FEMA.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
3. Driver Mode Activation
a. Option 1—Automatic Activation.
Driver mode automatically activates
within a reasonable period of time when
the portable device: (1) Is not paired
with the in-vehicle system, and (2) by
itself, or in conjunction with the vehicle
in which it is being used, distinguishes
that it is being used by a driver who is
driving. The driver mode does not
activate when the device is being used
by a non-driver.
i. Development of technologies that
can distinguish between a device being
used by a driver and a device being used
by a passenger and appropriately alter,
limit, or eliminate their visual-manual
interfaces when used by a driver is
encouraged. In the case in which Driver
Mode is automatically activated in a
moving vehicle, the technology should
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:12 Dec 02, 2016
Jkt 241001
be able to distinguish the driveroperated devices from the passengeroperated devices to a high-degree of
accuracy and reliability; and be
executed in a prompt manner relative to
the starting motion of the driver’s
vehicle.
b. Option 2—Driver Activation. Driver
Mode is activated by the driver before
driving. If this option is used, Driver
Mode should be easily accessible via the
portable device’s software or hardware
user interface, enabling the driver to
engage Driver Mode quickly and with
the fewest number of steps possible.
4. Unpaired Portable Device Location
A specific location for an unpaired
portable device (e.g., mounting location)
is not specified in these guidelines. The
test location described in the Task
Acceptance Testing section is for testing
purposes only and not considered a
recommendation for device placement.
V. Task Acceptance Testing
Task acceptance testing for portable
devices should use the same test
methods as those described in the Phase
1 Guidelines Section VI. The specific
procedures for Eye Glance Measurement
Using Driving Simulator Testing and
Occlusion Testing are incorporated by
reference, as detailed in the following
subsections of the Phase 1 Guidelines
Section VI:
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. Text Performance Errors During
Testing.
The Acceptance Criteria detailed in
the Phase 1 Guidelines for both the
Simulator (Section VI.E.14) and
Occlusion (Section VI.G.17) test
methods are also applicable for testing
portable devices.
A. Additional Test Procedures for
Portable and Aftermarket Devices
1. Permanently Installed Aftermarket
Devices. Devices that are intended to be
permanently installed in the vehicle
should be tested in the location
prescribed by the device manufacturer,
and according to the test procedures
noted above. Such prescribed
installation locations should conform to
the guidelines specified in the following
subsections from Phase 1 Guidelines
Section V:
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
87683
A. No Obstruction of View.
B. Easy to See and Reach.
C. Maximum Display Downward
Angle.
D. Lateral Position of Visual Displays.
2. Paired Devices: Testing procedures
assume the portable device is already
paired to the vehicle system, as defined
in Section III. Because the testing of the
paired portable device will use the
built-in display and controls system, the
location of the paired portable device
itself is not specified.
3. Unpaired Devices: Unpaired
portable devices should only be tested
in a mounted location using tasks that
are accessed through the Driver Mode
interface. NHTSA recognizes that there
are substantial variations in portable
device mounting hardware options and
vehicle interior designs that are
available to drivers. As such, unpaired
portable devices should be mounted
within a vehicle to the greatest extent
possible to the following
recommendations:
a. The mount location should conform
to the recommendations specified in the
Phase 1 Guidelines Section V.A through
Section V.D noted above.
b. The mounting location should not
result in the portable device interfering
with airbag deployment zones or safe
operation of the vehicle controls (e.g.,
steering wheel, gear shifter, etc.).
VI. Driver Distraction Guidelines
Interpretation Letters
NHTSA intends to clarify the meaning
of its Driver Distraction Guidelines in
response to questions posed through the
issuance of interpretation letters.
A. Guideline Interpretation Letter
Procedure
1. Guidelines interpretation letters
will only be issued in response to
specific written requests for
interpretation of the NHTSA Guidelines.
2. Requests for Guidelines
interpretation letters may be submitted
to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. The mailing address is:
Chief Counsel, NCC–200, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
3. Responses will be mailed to
requestors, published in the docket, and
posted in a designated area on the
NHTSA Web site.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November
21, 2016 under authority delegated by 49
CFR 1.95.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety
Research.
[FR Doc. 2016–29051 Filed 12–2–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87656-87683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29051]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0137]
Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for Portable
and Aftermarket Devices
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed Federal guidelines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice details the proposed contents of the second phase
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Driver
Distraction Guidelines (Phase 2 Guidelines). The purpose of the Phase 2
Guidelines is to provide a safety framework for developers of portable
and aftermarket electronic devices to use when developing visual-manual
user interfaces for their systems. The Guidelines encourage innovative
solutions such as pairing and Driver Mode that, when implemented, will
reduce the potential for unsafe driver distraction by limiting the time
a driver's eyes are off the road, while at the same time preserving the
full functionality of these devices when they are not used while
driving. Currently no safety guidelines exist for portable device
technologies when they are used during a driving task. NHTSA seeks
comments and suggestions to improve this proposal.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to be received not
later than February 3, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone: (202) 366-9826.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments
[[Page 87657]]
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
U.S. DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000, (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or
you may visit https://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Dr. Chris Monk, phone: (202) 366-5195, or chris.monk@dot.gov. Dr.
Monk's mailing address is: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final version of the Phase 2 Guidelines
will not have the force and effect of law and will not be a regulation.
Therefore, NHTSA is not required to provide notice and an opportunity
for comment. NHTSA is doing so, however, to ensure that the final Phase
2 Guidelines benefit from the input of all knowledgeable and interested
members of the public.
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. The Driver Distraction Safety Problem
B. What is driver distraction?
C. NHTSA's Efforts To Reduce Driver Distraction
D. The Proposed NHTSA Guidelines for Portable and Aftermarket
Devices
E. Major Differences Between the Proposed Phase 2 and Phase 1
NHTSA Guidelines
F. Phase 2 Outreach Efforts
II. Background
A. Overview
B. Definition and Scope of Driver Distraction
C. Prevalence of Portable Device Use While Driving
D. Driver Distraction Safety Problem
E. Driver Distraction and Portable Devices
1. Crash Data
2. Crash Risk Associated With Portable Device Use
F. Overview of Efforts To Combat Driver Distraction
G. Efforts by States To Address Distracted Driving Involving the
Use of Portable Devices
H. Education and Public Awareness Efforts
1. Government Programs and Efforts
2. Industry Programs and Efforts
I. Design Guideline Efforts
1. NHTSA's Phase 1 Visual-Manual Driver Distraction Guidelines
2. Efforts by Industry To Address Driver Distraction From
Portable Devices
3. Public Meeting on the Phase 2 Distraction Guidelines
III. Distraction Guidelines for Portable and Aftermarket Devices
A. Scope
1. Devices/Device Interfaces
2. Tasks
B. Overview of the Phase 2 Guidelines
C. Pairing
1. Pairing Recommendations
2. Privacy and Data Sharing for Paired Devices
3. Cybersecurity for Paired Devices
D. Driver Mode
1. Driver Mode Recommendations
2. Driver Mode Activation
E. Aftermarket Devices
IV. Expected Effects of the Phase 2 Guidelines
A. Estimated Time for Conformance
B. NHTSA Monitoring of Portable and Aftermarket Conformance With
the Guidelines
V. Authority To Issue the Phase 2 Guidelines
VI. Public Participation
VII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA)
I. Executive Summary
A. The Driver Distraction Safety Problem
In 2015,\1\ 10 percent of the 35,092 traffic fatalities involved
one or more distracted drivers, and these distraction-affected crashes
resulted in 3,477 fatalities, an 8.8 percent increase from the 3,197
fatalities in 2014.\2\ Of the 5.6 million non-fatal, police-reported
crashes in 2014 (the most recent year for which detailed distraction-
affected crash data is available), 16 percent were distraction-affected
crashes, and resulted in 424,000 people injured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA. (2016). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: 2015
Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview (DOT HS 812 318). Available at
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812318
(last accessed on 10/4/16).
\2\ NHTSA. (2016). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note:
Distracted Driving 2014 (DOT HS 812 260) (hereinafter ``Traffic
Safety Facts Research Note: Distracted Driving 2014''). Available at
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812260
(last accessed on 10/4/16). 2014 data are the most recent data
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The crash data indicate that visual-manual interaction (an action
that requires a user to look away from the roadway and manipulate a
button or interface) with portable devices, particularly cell phones,
is often the main distraction for drivers involved in crashes. In 2014,
there were 385 fatal crashes that involved the use \3\ of a cell phone,
resulting in 404 fatalities. These crashes represent 13 percent of the
distraction-affected fatal crashes or 1.3 percent of all fatal
crashes.\4\ The data also indicate that there were a number of fatal
crashes that involved the use of a device or object brought into the
vehicle (some of which may also have been crashes that involved the use
of a cell phone). This catch-all category includes crashes that
involved the use of portable devices, such as navigation devices, in
addition to other types of objects (e.g., cigarette lighters). Of the
967,000 distraction-affected crashes in 2014, 7 percent (or 1.1 percent
of all crashes) involved the use of cell phones and resulted in 33,000
people injured.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Use of a cell phone includes talking on or listening to a
cell phone, dialing or texting on a cell phone, and other cell-
phone-related activities.
\4\ Other types of distraction-affected crashes include those
caused by daydreaming, eating or drinking, smoking, and conversing
with a passenger. See NHTSA. (2016). Traffic Safety Facts Research
Note: Distracted Driving 2014.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What is driver distraction?
Driver distraction is a specific type of inattention that occurs
when drivers divert their attention away from the driving task to focus
on another activity. This distraction can come from electronic devices,
such as texting or emailing on cell phones or smartphones, and more
traditional activities such as interacting with passengers, eating, or
events external to the vehicle. Driver distraction can affect drivers
in different ways, and can be broadly categorized into the following
types:
Visual distraction: Tasks that require the driver to look
away from the roadway to visually obtain information;
Manual distraction: Tasks that require the driver to take
one or both hands off the steering wheel to manipulate a control,
device, or other non-driving-related item;
Cognitive distraction: Tasks that require the driver to
avert their mental attention away from the driving task.
Tasks can involve one, two, or all three of these distraction
types.
NHTSA is aware of the effect that these types of distraction can
have on driving safety, particularly visual-manual distraction. At any
given time, an estimated 542,073 drivers are using hand-held cell
phones while driving.\6\
[[Page 87658]]
Moreover, when sending or receiving a text message with a hand-held
phone, the total time that a driver's eyes are focused off the road is
23 seconds on average.\7\ This means while traveling at 55 mph, a
driver's eyes are off the road for more than a third of a mile for
every text message sent or received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ NHTSA. (2016). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Driver
Electronic Device Use in 2015. (DOT HS 812 326). Available at
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812326
(last accessed on 10/4/16).
\7\ Fitch, G., et al. (2013). The Impact of Hand-Held and Hands-
Free Cell Phone Use on Driving Performance and Safety-Critical Event
Risk (DOT HS 811 757). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. NHTSA's Efforts To Reduce Driver Distraction
As an agency committed to reducing deaths, injuries, and economic
losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes, NHTSA has initiated, and
continues to work toward eliminating crashes attributable to driver
distraction. Most prominently, NHTSA and the United States Department
of Transportation (US DOT) have encouraged efforts by states and other
local authorities to pass laws prohibiting hand-held use of portable
devices while driving. NHTSA, in conjunction with industry, local
governments, and various public interest groups, has also taken
numerous steps to educate the public about the dangers of distracted
driving.
However, until distracted driving is eliminated, the agency must
work in the real-world where many drivers continue to use their
portable devices and other in-vehicle systems in unsafe ways while
driving. Thus, NHTSA has also worked on how to mitigate the distraction
that may be caused by these new technologies. In April 2010, NHTSA
called for the development of voluntary guidelines addressing driver
distraction caused by in-vehicle systems and portable devices.\8\ This
sentiment was reinforced by the US DOT's and NHTSA's June 2012
``Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving.'' \9\ The blueprint is a
comprehensive approach to the distraction problem. The three steps
outlined in the blueprint include: Enacting and enforcing tough state
laws on distracted driving, addressing technology, and better educating
young drivers. All three components are necessary to address the
distraction issue. The Distraction Guidelines focus on step two by
addressing technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NHTSA. (2010). Overview of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's Driver Distraction Program (DOT HS 811 299).
Available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/811299.pdf (last accessed on 10/4/16).
\9\ NHTSA. (2012). Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving (DOT
HS 811 629). Available at: https://www.distraction.gov/downloads/pdfs/blueprint-for-ending-distracted-driving.pdf (last accessed on
10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The development of non-binding, voluntary guidelines for in-vehicle
and portable devices is being implemented in three phases. The Phase 1
Driver Distraction Guidelines (Phase 1 Guidelines), released in 2013,
cover visual-manual interfaces of electronic devices installed in
vehicles as original equipment (OE).\10\ The Phase 2 Driver Distraction
Guidelines (Phase 2 Guidelines), which are the subject of this notice,
would apply to visual-manual interfaces of portable and aftermarket
devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 78 FR 24817 (Apr. 26, 2013). Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/04/26/2013-09883/visual-manual-nhtsa-driver-distraction-guidelines-for-in-vehicle-electronic-devices (last accessed on 10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While NHTSA is proposing the Phase 2 Guidelines, it is important to
note that the agency continues to support state efforts to prohibit
hand-held use of portable devices while driving. In proposing the Phase
2 Guidelines, NHTSA stresses that it does not encourage the hand-held
use of portable devices while driving. While NHTSA acknowledges that
there are many available technology solutions, state laws, and consumer
information campaigns designed to help reduce distracted driving, the
agency believes that an important way to help mitigate the real-world
risk posed by driver distraction from portable devices is for these
devices to have limited functionality and simplified interfaces when
they are used by drivers while driving. This is especially true because
some of these devices are intended to be used while driving and others
have applications that are clearly meant to be used by drivers to
complete the driving task. These Guidelines are, therefore, intended to
reduce the potential distraction associated with hand-held portable and
aftermarket device use while driving. The agency believes these
Guidelines will provide a framework for portable device and application
developers to take into account real-world device use by consumers when
driving. In addition, the agency notes that applications that are meant
to be used by drivers while driving are likely to continue to be
developed and made available.
While these Guidelines help manufacturers develop portable and
aftermarket devices while keeping safe driving in mind, it remains the
driver's responsibility to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle and
to comply with all state traffic laws. This includes, but is not
limited to laws that ban texting and/or the use of hand-held devices
while driving. NHTSA and the US DOT support and will continue to
support State and Federal efforts to combat distracted driving.
D. The Proposed NHTSA Guidelines for Portable and Aftermarket Devices
This notice announces the proposed Phase 2 Guidelines for Portable
and Aftermarket Devices. The Phase 1 Guidelines for OE in-vehicle
interfaces, discussed in detail below, provide the foundation for the
proposed Phase 2 Guidelines. Phase 1 provided specific recommendations
for minimizing the distraction potential from OE in-vehicle interfaces
that involve visual-manual interaction. Particularly, the Phase 1
Guidelines are focused on recommending acceptance criteria for driver
glance behavior where single average glances away from the forward
roadway are 2 seconds or less and where the sum of the durations of all
individual glances away from the forward roadway are 12 seconds or less
while performing a testable task, such as selecting a song from a
satellite radio station.
To the extent practicable, the Phase 2 Guidelines apply the Phase 1
recommendations to the visual-manual interfaces of portable devices
(e.g., smartphones, tablets, and navigation devices) and aftermarket
devices (i.e., devices installed in the vehicle after manufacture).
Because there are both similarities and differences between OE
interfaces and portable devices, the Phase 2 Guidelines primarily focus
on portable devices. Due to the functional similarities between
aftermarket devices and OE systems, the Phase 2 Guidelines direct
manufacturers to the Phase 1 Guidelines.
The proposed Phase 2 Guidelines present two concurrent approaches
for mitigating distraction associated with the use of portable and
aftermarket devices by drivers. First, the proposed Guidelines
recommend that portable and OE in-vehicle systems be designed so that
they can be easily paired to each other and operated through the OE in-
vehicle interface. Assuming that the OE in-vehicle interface conforms
to the Phase 1 Guidelines, pairing would ensure that the tasks
performed by the driver while driving meet the time-based, eye-glance
task acceptance criteria specified in the Phase 1 Guidelines. Pairing
would also ensure that certain activities that would inherently
interfere with the driver's ability to safely control the vehicle would
be locked out while driving (i.e., the ``per se lock outs'' referred to
in the Phase 1 Guidelines). Those per se lock outs include:
[[Page 87659]]
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.
NHTSA encourages all entities involved with the engineering and
design of pairing technologies to jointly develop compatible and
efficient processes that focus on improving the usability and ease of
connecting a driver's portable device with their in-vehicle system.
The second approach recommended by the proposed Phase 2 Guidelines
is that portable devices that do not already meet the NHTSA glance and
per se lock out criteria when being used by a driver should include a
Driver Mode that is developed by industry stakeholders (i.e., Operating
System or handset makers).
The Driver Mode should present an interface to the driver that
conforms with the Phase 1 Guidelines and, in particular, locks out
tasks that do not meet Phase 1 task acceptance criteria or are among
the per se lock outs listed above. The purpose of Driver Mode is to
provide a simplified interface when the device is being used unpaired
while driving, either because pairing is unavailable or the driver
decides not to pair. The Guidelines recommend two methods of activating
Driver Mode depending on available technology. The first option, and
the one encouraged by the agency, is to automatically activate the
portable device's Driver Mode when: (1) The device is not paired with
the in-vehicle system, and (2) the device, by itself, or in conjunction
with the vehicle in which it is being used, distinguishes that it is
being used by a driver who is driving. The driver mode does not
activate when the device is being used by a non-driver, e.g.,
passenger.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For purposes of this notice, ``passenger'' is a subset of
``non-driver.'' Non-drivers include not only personal vehicle
passengers, but also people riding mass transit, bicycling, and the
like. When referring to the specific type of vehicles this guidance
is aimed at--light vehicles--the notice will often refer to those
occupants as drivers and passengers and the technology that
distinguishes between drivers and passengers in light vehicles as
driver-passenger distinction technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has learned that technologies to detect whether a driver or
passenger is using a device have been developed but are currently being
refined such that they can reliably detect whether the device user is
the driver or a passenger and are not overly annoying and
impractical.\12\ Accordingly, the agency is proposing a second means of
activation--manual activation of Driver Mode--meaning that Driver Mode
is activated manually by the user. The agency foresees this being a
temporary option in the Phase 2 Guidelines until driver-passenger
distinction technology is more mature, refined, and widely available.
The agency is optimistic such technology can be implemented as soon as
practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For further discussion of driver-passenger distinction
technologies, see infra Section I.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the Phase 2 Guidelines include recommendations for
aftermarket devices--those devices that are intended to be permanently
installed in the vehicle, which were not addressed in Phase 1. The
proposed Phase 2 Guidelines suggest that aftermarket devices meet the
same task acceptance criteria and other relevant recommendations as
specified for OE interfaces in Phase 1.
Due to the close relationship between the Phase 1 and Phase 2
Guidelines, the agency is considering combining the two phases into a
single document when the Phase 2 Guidelines are finalized. The agency
requests comment on whether a single combined document would be easier
for industry to use and the public at large to reference, or whether
separate documents would be simpler.
Because these proposed 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 welcomes comments on the potential
benefits and costs that would result from voluntary compliance with the
Guidelines.
E. Major Differences Between the Proposed Phase 2 and Phase 1 NHTSA
Guidelines
The Phase 1 Guidelines recommend that interfaces and tasks
determined to be more distracting than a specified level should not be
accessible to the user while the user is driving. Similarly,
conformance with the proposed Phase 2 Guidelines would result in
drivers interacting with their paired portable devices through Phase 1-
conforming OE, built-in interfaces. In many cases, it is up to the
driver to pair his or her device with the vehicle's interface or, as in
the case with many older vehicles, the vehicle does not have the
capability to pair with a portable device, so the Phase 2 Guidelines
also recommend that the portable device be put in Driver Mode for use
while driving instead of the portable device's default interface.
There are several distinctions between portable devices and in-
vehicles systems that result in different considerations between the
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Guidelines. The first distinction is that many
portable devices are designed with the intent of being used in a
variety of contexts that may or may not include driving, whereas OE in-
vehicle interfaces are designed specifically for use while driving
(unless specific functions are inaccessible when the vehicle is in
motion). As a result, it is important that the Phase 2 Guidelines
account for the need to reliably identify when a portable device is in
fact being used by the driver of a moving vehicle.
A second distinction between portable devices and in-vehicle
systems is that the portable devices may be used by other vehicle
occupants in locations where the driver cannot see or access the
device, e.g., by a passenger in the back seat. In contrast, all of the
interaction with the OE in-vehicle interface occurs in the vehicle, and
the location of the interface (and whether the driver can access it) is
known to the vehicle manufacturer when the interface is designed and
installed.\13\ These differences between the portable device and OE in-
vehicle interface can be overcome with technological solutions, as
described in greater detail below, potentially allowing for a Driver
Mode that activates when the portable device is used by a driver while
driving. This would allow for the device to be used in its full
capacity in non-driving situations. Therefore, NHTSA encourages the
development and implementation of technologies that can distinguish
between drivers and passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Phase 1 Guidelines explicitly exclude OE in-vehicle
devices that cannot reasonably be reached or seen by the driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A third distinction between portable devices and in-vehicle systems
is that, if not paired with the in-vehicle system, portable devices can
be placed and/or mounted in a variety of different locations in the
vehicle. There is also variability in the placement of an aftermarket
device--although to a lesser extent than for portable devices, since
aftermarket devices are confined to the available locations on the
vehicle, such as inside the center stack or on top of the dashboard.
NHTSA has elected not to include recommendations concerning whether or
where a portable device should be mounted in this proposed set
[[Page 87660]]
of guidelines, but we seek comment on whether we should include them at
a later date and whether there are already other entities/programs that
provide advice on where to mount devices safely.
A fourth distinction is that the user-interface experience with
portable devices can be different from built-in and installed
aftermarket systems due to a wide range of device characteristics
(e.g., smaller screens on portable devices). In addition, users often
use their thumbs to interact with touchscreens on hand-held portable
devices, whereas the index finger is more commonly used with built-in
and installed aftermarket systems. While these differences in device
characteristics may affect a driver's interaction with the device,
NHTSA believes it is unnecessary to address design issues at the
characteristic level for the Phase 2 Guidelines, because, regardless of
their specific features, portable devices will be used while within
reach of the driver and viewed at a downward viewing angle. Rather,
NHTSA maintains its focus on the Phase 1 test procedures and acceptance
criteria in Phase 2 for paired and unpaired portable devices, as well
as installed aftermarket devices.
The variability of potential locations for portable and aftermarket
devices has implications for testing procedures to determine
conformance with our recommendations concerning Driver Mode.
Specifically, the proposed Phase 2 Guidelines' test procedure for when
the device is in Driver Mode includes recommendations about the
placement of the portable electronic devices during testing. In order
to address the issues mentioned above regarding the variability of the
portable device's location and driver's access to its screen, the
proposed test procedure recommends that unpaired portable devices be
tested in a mounted location that is easy for the driver to reach and
is based on driver viewing angle specified in Phase 1. NHTSA has
included a general recommended testing location for unpaired portable
devices but seeks comment on whether a location could be specified that
would not result in infinite possibilities or be too particular to any
one device or vehicle.
For aftermarket devices that are intended to be permanently
installed in the vehicle, the proposed test procedure recommends that
they be tested in the installation location prescribed by the device
manufacturer.
F. Phase 2 Outreach Efforts
NHTSA is committed to reducing deaths and injuries resulting from
motor vehicle crashes from distraction by encouraging the development
of devices that can be safer if used while driving. As part of the
ongoing process of harmonizing with industry standards and practices,
NHTSA hosted a public meeting on March 12, 2014, to bring together
vehicle manufacturers and suppliers, portable and aftermarket device
manufacturers, portable and aftermarket device operating system
providers, cellular service providers, industry associations,
application developers, researchers, and consumer groups to discuss
technical issues regarding the agency's development of the Phase 2
Driver Distraction Guidelines for portable and aftermarket devices.
NHTSA held the public meeting to ensure the stakeholders' interests
were communicated and considered in the development of the Phase 2
Guidelines. NHTSA has met with portable and aftermarket device
manufacturers through the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) \14\
working group as well as individual meetings as part of an ongoing
effort to enhance the cooperation and coordination of the Distraction
Guidelines. Likewise, NHTSA participated in U.S. Senator John (Jay) D.
Rockefeller's ``Over-Connected and Behind the Wheel: A Summit on
Technological Solutions to Distracted Driving'' on February 6, 2014.
Sen. Rockefeller, chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation, hosted the summit to address potential
technological solutions for minimizing driver distraction. NHTSA has
also met with majority and minority staff members from several House
and Senate Committees, including the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the
House Appropriations Committee, the Senate Commerce Committee, and the
Senate Appropriations Committee, in July 2014 to provide background on
the Phase 2 Guidelines and answer questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Following NHTSA's Phase 2 Guidelines public meeting but
before the issuance of this notice, the Consumer Electronics
Association changed its name to the Consumer Technology Association.
This notice will refer to that entity as the Consumer Technology
Association or CTA unless the name is used in a publication title or
citation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. Overview
Driver distraction is a safety problem in the United States. The
latest crash and fatality data implicate driver distraction in 10
percent of fatal crashes, 18 percent of injury crashes, and 16 percent
of all motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2014.\15\ The 2014 data show
that cell phones were directly linked to 385 fatal crashes (resulting
in 404 fatalities), which is 13 percent of all distraction affected
crashes and 1.3 percent of all fatal crashes.\16\ The following
sections outline the definition of driver distraction, the prevalence
of portable device use in motor vehicles, and the crash and crash risk
data associated with distraction from all devices in general and
portable device use specifically. This section also outlines the
various efforts from the US DOT, industry, and safety advocates to
combat the distraction problem. These efforts include improving our
understanding of the distraction problem, the implementation of
legislation and enforcement approaches, driver education and public
awareness campaigns, and guidelines for industry to develop less
distracting devices and driver-vehicle interfaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Distracted Driving
2014.
\16\ Because of the way crash data is reported and collected,
there are limitations on how distraction-affected crashes, including
those involving cell phone use, are represented. For an explanation
of potential reasons for underreporting, please see Traffic Safety
Facts Research Note: Distracted Driving 2014 at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Definition and Scope of Driver Distraction
Driver distraction 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/smartphones, and from more
conventional activities, such as viewing 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
broadly categorized into the following types:
Visual distraction: Tasks that require the driver to look
away from the roadway to visually obtain information;
Manual distraction: Tasks that require the driver to take
one or both hands off the steering wheel to manipulate a control,
device, or other non-driving-related item;
Cognitive distraction: Tasks that require the driver to
avert their mental attention away from the driving task.
Any given task can involve one, two, or all three of these types of
distraction. NHTSA is aware of the effect that these types of
distraction can have on driving
[[Page 87661]]
safety, particularly visual-manual distraction.
The impact of distraction on driving is determined from multiple
criteria, the type and level of distraction, and the frequency and
duration of task performance. 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.
C. Prevalence of Portable Device Use While Driving
NHTSA is concerned about the role of portable electronic devices in
distracted driving crashes. NHTSA has been monitoring drivers' use of
portable devices through its National Occupant Protection Use Survey
(NOPUS),\17\ which involves the direct observation of driver electronic
device use at probabilistically-sampled intersections. The most recent
available NOPUS data from 2015 showed that 2.2 percent of drivers were
observed manipulating hand-held devices, 3.8 percent of drivers were
observed holding cell phones to their ears while driving, and 0.6
percent of drivers were observed speaking into visible headsets while
driving. Notably, the percentage of drivers visibly manipulating hand-
held devices has nearly quadrupled from 0.6 percent in 2009 to 2.2
percent in 2015, whereas the percentage of drivers holding cell phones
decreased from 5 percent in 2009 to 3.8 percent in 2015. The percentage
of drivers speaking into visible headsets has fluctuated from 0.6
percent in 2009, to as high as 0.9 percent in 2010, and as low as 0.4
percent in 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ NHTSA. (2016). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Driver
Electronic Device Use in 2015(DOT HS 812 326). Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812326 (last
accessed on 10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveys of drivers indicate even higher rates of portable device
use while driving. According to a 2012 survey published by NHTSA,\18\
14 percent of drivers reported reading text messages and email while
driving at least some of the time, and 10 percent of drivers reported
sending text or email messages while driving at least some of the time.
In addition, almost half of drivers reported answering their cell phone
when driving at least some of the time, and more than half of drivers
who reported answering their phones while driving said they will
continue to drive while talking on the phone. The survey further
indicated that almost a quarter of drivers reported that they are at
least sometimes willing to make a cell phone call while driving. As
will be seen, these visual-manual distraction activities are associated
with increased crash and near-crash risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Schroeder, P., Meyers, M., & Kostyniuk, L. (2013). National
Survey on Distracted Driving Attitudes and Behaviors--2012 (DOT HS
811 729). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's 2013 Cell Phone Naturalistic Driving Study \19\ found that
28 percent of the calls and 10 percent of the text messages in the
participant cell phone records overlapped with periods of driving. In
terms of visual-manual task duration while interacting with the cell
phone, dialing on a hand-held cell phone lasted 12.4 seconds (s), on
average, while pushing a button to begin a hands-free cell phone call
(either with an aftermarket ``portable'' hands-free device or with a OE
built-in, hands-free connection) took significantly less time (averages
were 2.9 s and 4.6 s, respectively). Texting interactions lasted 36.4
s, on average (Min = 0.3 s, Max = 450.1 s), while driving at speeds
above 8 km/h (approximately 5 mph). The study also assessed call
duration as a function of hand-held, portable hands-free (e.g.,
aftermarket headset), and integrated hands-free (e.g., wireless
connection to vehicle system). When driving at speeds above 8 km/h
(approximately 5 mph), drivers talked longer on portable hands-free
cell phones (4.96 min on average) than on integrated hands-free cell
phones (3.78 minutes on average) or hand-held cell phones (3.00 min on
average). However, the study found no differences in the number of text
messages made per minute as a function of hand-held, portable hands-
free, and integrated hands-free cell phones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Fitch, G., et al. (2013). The Impact of Hand-Held and
Hands-Free Cell Phone Use on Driving Performance and Safety-Critical
Event Risk (DOT HS 811 757). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a more recent survey by the AAA Foundation for Traffic
Safety,\20\ which focused on driving habits during the 30 days prior to
the survey, 34.7 percent of drivers reported reading a text or email
messages while driving, and 25.8 percent of drivers reported typing or
sending text or email messages while driving. Additionally, 67.1
percent of drivers reported talking on a cell phone (of any kind,
including while using a wireless connection and speaker phone) while
driving during this period. These data show that many drivers continue
to engage in visual- manual distraction activities with their portable
devices while driving. This is concerning because research by NHTSA and
others suggests that visual-manual manipulation of devices while
driving dramatically increases crash risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Hamilton, B., Arnold, L., & Tefft, B. (2013). Distracted
Driving and Perceptions of Hands-Free Technologies, AAA Foundation
for Traffic Safety, Available at https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2013%20TSCI%20Cognitive%20Distraction.pdf (last
accessed on 10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The portable device market generally consists of portable devices
including smartphones, tablets, navigation devices, and portable music
players (e.g., mp3 players). The aftermarket device market generally
consists of products that are installed in a vehicle after its initial
purchase, such as car stereos and navigation systems. Access to content
(such as music and podcasts) has greatly increased over recent years,
as have the capabilities of these devices and the public's desire to
stay connected through them while driving. Accordingly, the scope of
stakeholders has grown to include automotive OE manufacturers, handset
(e.g., smartphone) manufacturers, application (app) developers,
wireless carriers, and software operating system providers. Through
various meetings with these wide-ranging stakeholders, NHTSA recognizes
the complexity of this stakeholder ``ecosystem'' and that distraction
guidelines are currently not available for designing portable device
user interfaces for safe use while driving. As a result, the
Distraction Guidelines will provide a uniform safety framework for
these stakeholders when integrating or developing their products for
driving use.
D. Driver Distraction Safety Problem
The significant safety impact of distracted driving is evident from
NHTSA's crash data, which comes from the Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (FARS) \21\ and the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
General Estimates System (GES).\22\ In 2014,\23\ 10 percent of all
fatal crashes involved one or more distracted drivers,\24\ and these
distraction-affected crashes \25\ resulted
[[Page 87662]]
in 3,197 fatalities.\26\ This number increased 8.8 percent to 3,477
fatalities in 2015.\27\ Of the 6 million non-fatal, police-reported
crashes in 2014, 16 percent (967,000) were distraction-affected crashes
and resulted in 431,000 people injured. Tables 1 and 2 quantify the
effects of distraction on fatal crashes from 2010 to 2014 \28\ and non-
fatal crashes from 2007 through 2014.\29\ These data show that
distraction-affected fatalities and crashes continue to be a concern,
and that NHTSA's ongoing efforts to address driver distraction from
multiple approaches, including through its Guidelines, are warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 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.
\22\ 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.
\23\ Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Distracted Driving
2014.
\24\ 3,000 distracted drivers were involved in these fatal
crashes.
\25\ A distraction-affected crash is any crash in which a driver
was identified as distracted at the time of the crash.
\26\ 10 percent of all crash fatalities (32,675 fatalities
overall in 2014).
\27\ NHTSA. (2016). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: 2015
Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview (DOT HS 812 318). Available at
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812318
(last accessed on 10/4/16).
\28\ Because of changes made in 2010 to the coding of distracted
driving in FARS, distraction-affected crash data from FARS for 2010
through 2014 cannot be compared to distracted-driving-related data
from FARS from previous years.
\29\ The coding of distracted driving in FARS and NASS GES was
unified beginning in 2010. Although this resulted in a coding change
for FARS, NASS GES coding did not change. Accordingly, NASS GES data
from 2007 through 2014 can be compared.
Table 1--Fatal Crashes Involving Distraction, 2010-2014 \23\
[FARS]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatal crashes Fatalities Drivers involved in
---------------------------------------------------------------- distraction-affected crashes?
In distraction--------------------------------
Year Distraction- affected
Overall affected (% of Overall crashes (% of Distracted
total crashes) total Overall drivers (% of
fatalities) total drivers)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010.................................................... 30,296 2,993 (10%) 32,885 3,092 (9%) 44,440 2,912 (7%)
2011.................................................... 29,867 3,047 (10%) 32,367 3,331 (10%) 43,668 3,085 (7%)
2012.................................................... 31,006 3,098 (10%) 33,782 3,328 (10%) 45,337 3,119 (7%)
2013.................................................... 30,203 2,910 (10%) 32,894 3,154 (10%) 44,574 2,959 (7%)
2014.................................................... 29,989 2,955 (10%) 32,675 3,179 (10%) 44,583 3,000 (7%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Non-Fatal Police Reported Crashes Involving Distraction, 2007-2014 \23\
[GES]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-fatal crashes People injured
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell phone use
In distraction- (% of people
Year Distraction- affected injured in
Overall affected (% of Overall crashes (% of distraction-
total crashes) total injured) affected
crashes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007............................ 5,986,000 998,000 (17%) 2,491,000 448,000 (18%) Unavailable
2008............................ 5,776,000 964,000 (17%) 2,346,000 466,000 (20%) Unavailable
2009............................ 5,474,000 954,000 (17%) 2,217,000 448,000 (20%) Unavailable
2010............................ 5,389,000 897,000 (17%) 2,239,000 416,000 (19%) 24,000 (6%)
2011............................ 5,308,000 823,000 (15%) 2,217,000 387,000 (17%) 21,000 (5%)
2012............................ 5,584,000 905,000 (16%) 2,362,000 421,000 (18%) 28,000 (7%)
2013............................ 5,657,000 901,000 (16%) 2,313,000 424,000 (18%) 34,000 (8%)
2014............................ 6,035,000 964,000 (16%) 2,338,000 431,000 (18%) 33,000 (8%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Driver Distraction and Portable Devices
1. Crash Data
The crash data indicate that the use of portable and aftermarket
devices, particularly cell phones, is often a leading distraction for
drivers involved in crashes (note that smartphones reached significant
market presence beginning in 2007). In 2014, there were 385 fatal
crashes that involved the use of a cell phone, though it is possible
that this is an underestimate due to the difficult nature in relating
cell phone use to crashes at the crash scene. These cell phone fatal
crashes represented 13 percent of the total distraction-affected fatal
crashes. The data also indicate that there were 75 distraction-affected
fatal crashes in 2014 that involved the driver using or reaching for a
device or object brought into the vehicle. This catch-all category of
fatal distraction crashes includes crashes that involved the use of
portable devices such as navigation devices in addition to other types
of objects (e.g., pocket cigarette lighters).
Of the 967,000 distraction-affected crashes in 2014, 8 percent
(69,000 crashes) involved the use of cell phones, resulting in 33,000
people injured. The tables below quantify the effects of cell phone or
other device use on fatal crashes from 2010 through 2014 and non-fatal
crashes that involved the use of cell phones or other devices from 2007
through 2014.\30\ As with Tables 1 and 2, these data show that cell
phone-affected fatalities and crashes continue to pose a risk to motor
vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Identification of specific distractions 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 ``distraction/inattention,
details unknown.'' Some portion of these crashes could have involved
a portable or aftermarket device.
[[Page 87663]]
Table 3--Fatal Crashes Involving the Use of Cell Phones 31 32 33 34 35 2010-2014
[FARS]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distraction-affected fatal crashes involving the use of a cell
phone Fatal crashes
---------------------------------------------------------------- involving use
% of of a device/
Year % of Fatalities in object brought
Crashes distraction- Fatalities distraction- into vehicle
affected affected other than a
crashes crashes cell phone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................ 366 12 408 13 70
2011............................ 354 12 385 12 53
2012............................ 378 12 415 12 66
2013............................ 411 14 455 14 70
2014............................ 385 13 404 13 75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The attributes ``Use of a Cell Phone'' and ``Use of or Reaching for Device/Object Brought into Vehicle'' are
not mutually exclusive and crashes may involve one or both of these attributes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ NHTSA. (2012). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note:
Distracted Driving 2010 (DOT HS 811 650). Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811650 (last
accessed on 10/4/16).
\32\ NHTSA. (2013). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note:
Distracted Driving 2011 (DOT HS 811 737). Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811737 (last
accessed on 10/4/16).
\33\ NHTSA. (2014). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note:
Distracted Driving 2012 (DOT HS 812 012). Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812012 (last
accessed on 10/4/16).
\34\ NHTSA. (2015). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note:
Distracted Driving 2013 (DOT HS 812 132). Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812132 (last
accessed on 10/4/16).
\35\ Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Distracted Driving
2014.
Table 4--Non-Fatal Police Reported Crashes Involving Distraction 31 34 2007-2014
[GES]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distraction-affected non-fatal crashes
involving the use of a cell phone % of People
------------------------------------------------ injured in
Year % of distraction-
Distraction- affected
Crashes affected People injured crashes
crashes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007............................................ 49,000 5 24,000 5
2008............................................ 49,000 5 29,000 6
2009............................................ 46,000 5 24,000 5
2010............................................ 47,000 5 24,000 6
2011............................................ 50,000 6 21,000 5
2012............................................ 60,000 7 28,000 7
2013............................................ 71,000 8 34,000 8
2014............................................ \36\ 69,000 7 33,000 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Crash Risk Associated With Portable Device Use
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Possible reasons for the uptick between 2010 and 2014
include the increasing volume of smartphones in the market and
better distraction-related crash reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of crash risk data related to portable devices has
focused on cell phones. However, it is important to note that cell
phones have evolved from a portable hand-held phone designed
specifically for voice calls to a device that can be used for various
forms of communication, entertainment, and access to content. Examples
include applications developed for messaging, photo-sharing, gaming,
social networking, navigation, and other location-based services. While
these features are not intended to be used while driving, they remain
just as accessible to the driver in driving situations as any other
feature on a smartphone. Whether on smartphones, tablet computers, or
other portable electronic devices, access to more content can lead to
more visual-manual distraction, which the studies summarized below
consistently show is associated with higher levels of crash and near-
crash risk, and decreased driving performance.
The agency's distraction focus has been on research and test
procedures that measure aspects of driver performance having the
strongest connection to crash risk. As described below, interactions
with a distraction task that require visual attention (i.e., eyes-off-
road time) and manual operations (e.g., button presses) consistently
show association with increased crash and near-crash risk in
naturalistic driving studies and decreased driving performance in
simulator and test-track studies. The research summarized below
provides a brief overview of the distraction safety problem as
manifested in crashes and the relationship between visual-manual
distraction and crash risk. There are also many simulator and test-
track studies that show the negative effects of distracted driving have
on driving performance that are not included in the summary below.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ A sample of simulator and test-track study reports can be
found at www.distraction.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key component of the NHTSA distraction plan is to understand the
crash risk of drivers using a cell phone while driving. Early
epidemiological research reported that using a cell phone, hand-held or
hands-free, was associated with a quadrupling of the risk of injury and
property damage
[[Page 87664]]
crashes.38 39 Subsequent naturalistic driving studies that
investigated the risk of drivers performing specific cell phone
subtasks all found that increased crash risk and safety critical event
risk (SCE) were associated with visual-manual operations such as text
messaging and dialing. An SCE was defined as a crash (where contact was
made with another object), a near-crash (where a crash was avoided by a
rapid evasive maneuver), or a crash-relevant conflict (where a crash
avoidance response was performed that was less severe than a rapid
evasive maneuver, but greater in severity than a ``normal maneuver'').
However, in the naturalistic studies, non-visual-manual operations,
such as conversing on a cell phone, were not found to be associated
with an increase in crash risk.40 41 42 These results were
observed for both commercial motor vehicle and light-vehicle drivers,
as well as across broad classifications of low, moderate, and high
driving task demands.\43\ In contrast, research conducted in simulators
and on test tracks has found driving performance decrements when
driving while talking on a cell phone.44 45 46 47 These
experiments, however, cannot directly connect their results to SCE
risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ McEvoy, S.P., Stevenson, M.R., McCartt, A.T., Woodward, M.,
Haworth, C., Palamara, P., et al. (2005). Role of portable phones in
motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: A case-
crossover study. British Journal of Medicine, 331, 428-434.
\39\ Redelmeier, D.A., & Tibshirani, R.J. (1997). Association
between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. The
New England Journal of Medicine, 336, 453-458.
\40\ Hickman, J.S., Hanowski, R.J., & Bocanegra, J. (2010).
Distraction in Commercial Trucks and Buses: Assessing Prevalence and
Risk in Conjunction with Crashes and Near-Crashes (FMCSA-RRR-10-
049). Washington, DC: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
\41\ Klauer, S.G., et al. (2006). The Impact of Driver
Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car
Naturalistic Driving Study Data (DOT HS 810 594). Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
\42\ Olson, R.L., Hanowski, R.J., Hickman, J.S., & Bocanegra, J.
(2009). Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations: Final
Report. Contract DTMC75-07-D-00006, Task Order 3. Washington, DC:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
\43\ Fitch, G.M. & Hanowski, R. J. (2011). The risk of a safety-
critical event associated with portable device use as a function of
driving task demands. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention.
\44\ Atchley, P. & Dressel, J. (2004). Conversation limits the
functional field of view. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society 46(4), 664-673.
\45\ Drews, F.A., Pasupathi, M., & Strayer, D.L. (2004).
Passenger and cell-phone conversations in simulated driving.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual
Meeting 48, 2210-2212.
\46\ Horrey, W.J., Lesch, M.F., & Garabet, A. (2008). Assessing
the awareness of performance decrements in distracted drivers.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(2), 675-682. doi: 10.1016/
j.app.2007.09.004.
\47\ Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A., & Johnston, W.A. (2003). Cell
phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(1), 23-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2013, NHTSA published a study \48\ on the impact of hand-
held and hands-free cellular phone use on crash risk and driving
performance. The study investigated the effects of distraction from the
use of three types of cell phones while driving: (1) Hand-held (HH),
(2) portable hands-free (PHF), and (3) integrated hands-free (IHF).
Seventy-five percent of the phones used in the study could be
classified as smartphones. Naturalistic driving data was collected from
204 drivers who each voluntarily took part in the study for an average
of 31 days from February 2011 to November 2011. All participants
reported talking on a cell phone while driving at least once per day
prior to entering the study. With the participants' knowledge, data
acquisition systems were installed in their personal vehicles and
continuously recorded video of the driver's face, the roadway, and
various kinematic data such as the vehicle speed, acceleration, headway
information to lead vehicles, steering, and location. This was the
first naturalistic driving study to date in which participants provided
their cell phone records for analysis. The cell phone records allowed
the determination of when drivers used their cell phone, while the
video data allowed the determination of the type of cell phone used,
how long it was used for, and what subtasks were executed. The result
was a rich data set of driver behavior and performance when using a
cell phone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Fitch, G., et al. (2013). The Impact of Hand-Held and
Hands-Free Cell Phone Use on Driving Performance and Safety-Critical
Event Risk (DOT HS 811 757). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCE risk was investigated using two approaches: (1) A risk rate
approach, which assessed the SCE risk relative to general driving
(where non-cell-phone secondary tasks could occur), and (2) a case-
control approach, which assessed the SCE risk relative to ``just
driving'' (where non-driving-related secondary tasks did not occur).
The risk rate results are shown below (see the full report for the
case-control results along with driver performance results). The odds
ratio indicates the relative risk of an SCE during the listed activity.
An odds ratio value of 1.0 is considered equivalent to driving while
not distracted. Odds ratio values above 1.0 indicate elevated risk and
values below 1.0 indicate decreased risk, though the difference must be
statistically significant (i.e., reliably different) for conclusions to
be drawn about the associated risk of that activity.
Table 5--SCE Risk Associated With Cell Phone Use as Computed Through Risk Rate Approach
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Upper
Subtask Odds ratio confidence confidence p-value
limit (LCL) limit (UCL)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phone Use--Collapsed across types.......... 1.32 0.96 1.81 .0917
Visual-Manual................................... * 2.93 1.90 4.51 <.0001
Call-related Visual-Manual.................. * 3.34 1.76 6.35 .0003
Text-related Visual-Manual.................. * 2.12 1.14 3.96 .0184
Talking/Listening............................... 0.84 0.55 1.29 .4217
Talking/Listening Hand-held................. 0.84 0.47 1.53 .5764
Talking/Listening Portable Hands-free....... 1.19 0.55 2.57 .6581
Talking/Listening Integrated Hands-free..... 0.61 0.27 1.41 .2447
HH Cell Phone Use (Collapsed)................... * 1.73 1.20 2.49 .0034
PHF Cell Phone Use (Collapsed).................. 1.06 0.49 2.30 .8780
IHF Cell Phone Use (Collapsed).................. 0.57 0.25 1.31 .1859
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates a difference at the .05 level of significance.
[[Page 87665]]
The risk rate approach generates a powerful estimate of risk by
using all accounts of when cell phones were used while driving.
However, it cannot assess the SCE risk relative to ``just driving''
(defined as driving void of all non-driving-related secondary tasks)
without the availability of estimates of the propensity for each
potential secondary task that is performed while driving. The case-
control approach was thus used to address this limitation. A total of
2,308 baseline periods were randomly sampled based on each driver's
driving time in the study. This number was selected to be at least four
times the 342 SCEs that were identified. The odds of an SCE occurring
during specific cell phone subtasks were then compared to the odds of
an SCE occurring when just driving. Note that ``just driving'' was only
found in 46 percent of the baseline periods. Table 6 presents the odds
ratios (ORs) and 95-percent confidence limits for various cell phone
subtasks. As in the previous risk analysis, only VM subtasks performed
on an HH cell phone were found to be associated with an increased SCE
risk. Conversing on a cell phone (i.e., any type of cell phone) was not
found to increase SCE risk.
Table 6--SCE Risk Associated With Cell Phone Use as Computed Through Case-Control Approach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
baseline
Subtask OR LCL UCL #SCE periods SCE total BL total Total
(BL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phone Use--Collapsed....................... 1.1 0.8 1.53 57 358 211 1,426 1,637
Visual-Manual Subtasks.......................... * 1.73 1.12 2.69 29 116 183 1,184 1,367
Text messaging/Browsing..................... 1.73 0.98 3.08 16 64 170 1,132 1,302
Locate/Answer............................... * 3.65 1.67 8 10 19 164 1,087 1,251
Dial........................................ 0.99 0.12 8.11 1 7 155 1,075 1,230
Push to Begin/End Use....................... 0.63 0.08 4.92 1 11 155 1,079 1,234
End HH Phone Use............................ 1.26 0.43 3.71 4 22 158 1,090 1,248
Talking on Cell Phone........................... 0.75 0.49 1.15 28 259 182 1,327 1,509
HH Talking.................................. 0.79 0.43 1.44 13 114 167 1,182 1,349
PHF Talking................................. 0.73 0.36 1.47 9 86 163 1,154 1,317
IHF Talking................................. 0.71 0.3 1.66 6 59 160 1,127 1,287
HH Cell Phone Use (Collapsed)................... 1.39 0.96 2.03 41 204 195 1,272 1,467
PHF Cell Phone Use (Collapsed).................. 0.79 0.4 1.55 10 88 164 1,156 1,320
IHF Cell Phone Use (Collapsed).................. 0.62 0.26 1.46 6 67 160 1,135 1,295
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates a difference at the .05 level of significance.
The overall results from the study presented a clear finding:
Visual-manual subtasks performed on hand-held cell phones degraded
driver performance and increased SCE risk. Although current hands-free
cell phone interfaces allow drivers to communicate with their voices,
there is a concern that they still require visual-manual interactions.
In fact, drivers in this study frequently initiated hands-free calls
and performed other visual-manual operations (e.g., texted) with a
hand-held cell phone. A notable finding was that approximately half of
the hands-free cell phone interactions in this study were found to
involve visual-manual interactions with the hand-held phone. These
findings that implicate visual-manual distraction as the primary
distraction risk are consistent with previous naturalistic driving
investigations of crash risk related to cell phone subtasks,\49\
including the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study.50 51 52 53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Hickman, J.S., Hanowski, R.J., & Bocanegra, J. (2010).
Distraction in Commercial Trucks and Buses: Assessing Prevalence and
Risk in Conjunction with Crashes and Near-Crashes (FMCSA-RRR-10-
049). Washington, DC: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
\50\ Neale, V.L., et al. (2005). An Overview of the 100-Car
Naturalistic Study and Findings, ESV Paper 05-0400.
\51\ Dingus, T.A., et al. (2006). The 100-Car Naturalistic
Driving Study, Phase II--Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment
(DOT HS 810 593). Washington, DC: National Traffic Safety
Administration.
\52\ Klauer, S.G., et al. (2006). The Impact of Driver
Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car
Naturalistic Driving Study Data (DOT HS 810 594). Washington, DC:
National Traffic Safety Administration.
\53\ Klauer, S.G., et al. (2010). An Analysis of Driver
Inattention Using a Case-Crossover Approach On 100-Car Data: Final
Report (DOT HS 811 334). Washington, DC: National Traffic Safety
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Overview of Efforts To Combat Driver Distraction
Recognizing the distraction safety issue outlined above, NHTSA
published the ``Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Driver Distraction Program,'' \54\ in April 2010. This
plan consisted of four main initiatives:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ NHTSA. (2010). Overview of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's Driver Distraction Program, (DOT HS 811
299). Available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/811299.pdf (last accessed on 10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. NHTSA's Driver Distraction Guidelines fall under this
initiative.
3. Keep drivers safe through the introduction of crash avoidance
technologies. These include the use of crash warning systems to re-
focus the
[[Page 87666]]
attention of distracted drivers as well as vehicle-initiated (i.e.,
automatic) braking and steering to prevent or mitigate distraction-
affected crashes. Research 55 56 57 58 on how best to warn
distracted drivers in crash imminent situations is also supporting this
initiative. NHTSA is also performing a large amount of research on
automatic emergency braking technologies (e.g., crash warning systems
or automatic braking systems) and dynamic brake support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Lerner, N., et al. (2011). Crash Warning Interface Metrics:
Final Report (DOT HS 811 470a). Washington, DC: National Traffic
Safety Administration.
\56\ Robinson, E., et al. (2011). Crash Warning Interface
Metrics: Task 3 Final Report: Empirical Studies of Effects of DVI
Variability (DOT HS 811 470b). Washington, DC: National Traffic
Safety Administration.
\57\ Robinson, E., et al. (2011). Crash Warning Interface
Metrics: Task 3 Report Appendices (DOT HS 811 470c). Washington, DC:
National Traffic Safety Administration.
\58\ Forkenbrock, G., et al. (2011). A Test Track Protocol for
Assessing Forward Collision Warning Driver-Vehicle Interface
Effectiveness (DOT HS 811 501). Washington, DC: National Traffic
Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, testing high-visibility enforcement programs, and publishing
guidance for a ban on text messaging by Federal government employees
while driving.
In June 2012, the US DOT released a ``Blueprint for Ending
Distracted Driving.'' \59\ This was an update of the ``Overview of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Driver Distraction
Program.'' 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ NHTSA. (2012). Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving (DOT
HS 811 629). Available at: https://www.distraction.gov/downloads/pdfs/blueprint-for-ending-distracted-driving.pdf. (last accessed on
10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry and safety advocacy groups have also been working to
eliminate driver distraction using education and public awareness
campaigns, as well as through design guidance for built-in systems and
other aftermarket solutions. The following sections highlight the
efforts by NHTSA and the US DOT in legislative and enforcement
approaches, education and public awareness approaches, and device-based
solutions (e.g., guidelines or products), as well as similar efforts by
industry and safety advocates
G. Efforts by States To Address Distracted Driving Involving the Use of
Portable Devices
Most states, with the support of NHTSA and the US DOT, have passed
laws to limit the use of portable devices while driving. Currently, 46
states, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands ban texting
while driving for drivers of all ages. Fourteen states, DC, Puerto
Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands ban drivers of all ages from
using hand-held cell phones while driving.
In 2012, NHTSA partnered with the State of California and the State
of Delaware to initiate a high-visibility enforcement (increased police
presence supported by paid and earned media) demonstration program in
the Sacramento area of California and in the State of Delaware in
support of laws banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving.
Three waves of enforcement were conducted between October 2012 and June
2013. The featured tagline for the public face of the program was
``Phone in one Hand, Ticket in the Other.'' During the study period, a
small percentage of crashes were coded as distraction-related, but the
crash data analyses did not reveal any apparent effect of the high-
visibility enforcement on the incidence of distraction-related crashes.
Driver surveys, however, showed an increase in awareness that cell
phone laws were being enforced. Observed hand-held driver cell phone
use dropped by one-third from 4.1 percent to 2.7 percent in California
(a 34% reduction); and from 4.5 percent to 3.0 percent in Delaware (a
33% reduction). The study concluded that high-visibility enforcement
can be implemented over wide-spread, multi-jurisdictional areas and
reduce the number of people who use a hand-held cell phone while
driving.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Chaudhary, N.K., Connolly, J., Tison, J., Solomon, M., &
Elliott, K. (2015). Evaluation of the NHTSA distracted driving high-
visibility enforcement demonstration projects in California and
Delaware. (DOT HS 812 108). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Education and Public Awareness Efforts
1. Government Programs and Efforts
The US DOT and NHTSA have put considerable effort toward reaching
out to the community and the various stakeholders since the emergence
of distracted driving as a traffic safety concern. The US DOT and NHTSA
conducted two national summits, one in 2009 and one in 2011, to bring
attention to the issue.
Following these distraction summits, NHTSA has held several
meetings with stakeholders such as representatives of the automotive
and communications industries as well as researchers and other key
leaders to continue the public policy discussion on the distracted
driving issue. For the public, NHTSA has created a Web site,
www.distraction.gov, to provide timely information on distracted
driving and current information on related research and development
activities.
NHTSA has had, and continues to use, public service messages to
change the attitudes and behaviors of drivers through social norming
and enforcement messages. Social norming messaging is designed to
appeal to the individual to change their behavior because it is the
socially acceptable thing to do without an underlying theme related to
deterrence (e.g. ``One text or call could wreck it all''). The
enforcement messages were designed to be used in conjunction with high
visibility enforcement programs to promote compliance with distracted
driving laws or face the possible of an enforcement encounter (e.g. ``U
Drive U Text U Pay.'') Several messages in each category have been used
since the inception of the distracted driving prevention effort.
NHTSA has also made efforts to reach out into the community on the
issue of distracted driving through social media (e.g. ``Twitter
parties'') and blogs. There have also been a number of webinars for
stakeholders and the public to familiarize them with recent
developments in the effort to understand and reduce distractive driving
behavior.
On February 6, 2014, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, led by Senator Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia), held a
summit that focused on addressing potential technological solutions for
minimizing driver distraction. The summit consisted of three roundtable
sessions: (1) The State of Distracted Driving, (2) The State of
Technology, and (3) Where do we go from there? Participants in all
three of these roundtables consisted of Federal agencies, safety
advocacy groups, industry associations, and companies from the
automobile, consumer electronics, technology, and communications
industries. The summit facilitated a dialogue between the various
organizations, encouraging all participants to continue working
together technologically to reduce the negative impacts of driver
distraction.
[[Page 87667]]
2. Industry Programs and Efforts
A range of industry stakeholders have also put forth an effort to
educate drivers on the dangers of distracted driving. While there are
too many education and public service announcement campaigns from
industry and information outlets to list in this notice, two recent
efforts by the wireless industry are included as examples (see
www.distraction.gov for a larger set of examples). As early as 1999,
the wireless industry expended considerable effort to promote driver
education about distracted driving. Most recently, the wireless
industry partnered with the National Safety Council for the ``On the
Road, Off the Phone'' campaign, which was directed at parents and
younger drivers and focused on the dangers of texting while driving. In
another campaign, AT&T began the ``It Can Wait'' education and
awareness initiative recently, and garnered partnerships with several
wireless carriers including Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and T-Mobile, as
well as an endorsement from the CTIA--The Wireless Association.
I. Design Guideline Efforts
1. NHTSA's Phase 1 Visual-Manual Driver Distraction Guidelines
As part of NHTSA's efforts to reduce driver workload associated
with performing tasks using devices within the vehicle (original
equipment, aftermarket, and portable in-vehicle electronic devices) the
agency has been developing Driver Distraction Guidelines for these
devices. NHTSA issued its first phase of driver distraction guidelines
on April 26, 2013, after notice and comment.\61\ NHTSA's Phase 1
Visual-Manual Driver Distraction Guidelines cover 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). The Phase 1 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 Phase 1 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ 78 FR 24817 (Apr. 26, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To facilitate the development of these guidelines, NHTSA studied
existing guidelines relating to driver distraction prevention and
reduction and found the ``Statement of Principles, Criteria and
Verification Procedures on Driver-Interactions with Advanced In-Vehicle
Information and Communication Systems'' developed by the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance Guidelines) to be the most complete
and up-to-date. The Alliance Guidelines provided valuable input in
NHTSA's efforts to address driver distraction issues. Although NHTSA
drew heavily on that input in developing the Phase 1 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.
The Phase 1 Guidelines are based upon a number of fundamental
principles. These principles include that:
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 Phase 1 Guidelines list certain activities that inherently
interfere with a driver's ability to safely control the vehicle, and
the 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 (referred to as ``per se lock
outs''). The basis for these lock outs includes activities that are
discouraged by public policy and, in some instances, prohibited by
Federal regulation and/or State law (e.g., entering or displaying text
messages). They also include activities identified in industry driver
distraction guidelines, which NHTSA agrees are likely to distract
drivers significantly (e.g., displaying video or automatically
scrolling text). Finally, the lock outs 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). The specific per se lock outs are as follows:
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.
The per se lock out 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, which would conform to
these Guidelines, 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 Phase 1 Guidelines
specify two alternative test methods for measuring the impact of
performing a task on driving safety, as well as time-based acceptance
criteria for assessing whether a task interferes too much with driver
attention. It should be noted that secondary task is a broad term that
captures any interaction the driver has with an in-vehicle device that
is not directly related to the safe operation and control of a vehicle,
and thus captures all non-driving-related tasks as well as driving-
related tasks that aid the driving task but not the safe operation or
control of the vehicle. If a visual-manual secondary task does not meet
the acceptance criteria, the Phase 1 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. Eye-glance-based
criteria were selected because the research on visual-manual
distraction establishes a link between visual attention (eyes off the
road) and crash risk.
The first recommended test method measures the amount of time that
the driver's eyes are drawn away from the forward roadway while
performing a
[[Page 87668]]
task. The Phase 1 Guidelines recommend that devices be designed so that
tasks can be completed by the driver while driving with individual
glances away from the roadway of 2 seconds or less and a cumulative
time spent looking away from the roadway of 12 seconds or less. The
second test method uses a visual occlusion technique and involves
participants performing a task using occlusion goggles that
alternatively open and shut every 1.5 seconds. The Phase 1 Guidelines
recommend that devices be designed so that tasks can be completed with
a cumulative shutter open time of 12 seconds or less.
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 Phase 1 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 recommended maximum downward
viewing angle to the geometric center of each display.
In the notice announcing the Phase 1 Guidelines, the agency
clarified that because the Guidelines were voluntary and non-binding,
NHTSA's normal enforcement procedures related to Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) compliance were not applicable. However, NHTSA
indicated that as part of its ongoing distraction research activities,
the agency does intend to monitor manufacturers' voluntary adoption of
the Phase 1 Guidelines.
2. Efforts by Industry To Address Driver Distraction From Portable
Devices
Various efforts focused on portable and aftermarket devices have
been initiated by industry to address driver distraction. In July 2013,
the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), an association comprised of
2,000 companies within the consumer technology industry, initiated a
Working Group focused on addressing portable and aftermarket electronic
devices used by drivers in vehicles (formally named R6 WG18 Driver-
Device Interface Working Group). Through mid-2014, the group had the
goal of developing industry-based guidelines for portable device design
that would address driver distraction. As indicated in a letter to the
agency, the group had planned to use the NHTSA Phase 1 Guidelines as a
starting point. The focus of this group had been to create a set of
recommended practices by bringing together industry stakeholders and
soliciting their technical input and expertise. These voluntary,
industry-based recommended practices were intended to be used by
portable electronic device manufacturers, software developers, and any
other interested parties to improve the safety of driving and non-
driving-related task performance. In mid-2014, the Working Group
abandoned its work to develop industry-based guidelines due to
liability concerns, instead modifying its overall objective to produce
a technical report that categorizes ``products and services offered by
the consumer electronics (CE) industry that help make the driving
experience safer.'' \62\ CTA's technical report surveying the existing
driver mode technologies was released in January 2015.\63\ NHTSA has
been participating in CTA's working group as a non-voting liaison since
its inception. NHTSA has provided explanations and rationale for
aspects of NHTSA's Phase 1 Visual-Manual Driver Distraction Guidelines,
and participated in discussions regarding the application of the
guideline's basic principles to the complex, multipart ecosystem of
portable and aftermarket electronic devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Consumer Electronics (2014) CEA Cataloguing Driver Safety
Products and Services [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.ce.org/News/News-Releases/Press-Releases/2014/CEA-Cataloguing-Driver-Safety-Products-and-Service.aspx?feed=Technology-Standards-Press-Releases (last accessed on 10/4/16).
\63\ Consumer Electronics (2015). Keeping Your Eyes on the Road:
What the CE Industry is Doing to Help You Drive Safely. CEA-TR-6.
Avalaible for purchase at https://www.techstreet.com/standards/cta-tr-6?product_id=1888242 (last accessed on 10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There have also been efforts within the standardization sector of
the International Telecommunications Union (ITU-T) \64\ to establish
international consensus-based distraction standards for Information and
Communications Technologies (ICTs). The ITU-T effort was intended to
establish interoperability standards that enable the vehicle to safely
manage driver interaction with ICT applications and services,
regardless of if they are downloaded to a vehicle or reside in a
roadside station, portable device, cloud-based server, etc. These
interoperability standards define functional mechanisms, data formats,
and communications protocols. The proposed ITU-T ``User Interface
Requirements for Automotive Applications'' (P.UIA Recommendation) would
provide design guidance for user interfaces, as well as recommended
test procedures and performance thresholds. As it stands, the published
P.UIA Recommendation only proposes a structure for the guidance. The
ITU-T's efforts were concluded in 2013 with the publication of several
reports.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is the
United Nations specialized agency in the field of
telecommunications, information and communication technologies
(ICTs). The ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) is
a permanent organ of ITU. ITU-T is responsible for studying
technical, operating and tariff questions and issuing
Recommendations on them with a view to standardizing
telecommunications on a worldwide basis.
\65\ See the ITU-T's Web site for the Focus Group on
Distraction, which includes all reports that resulted from this
effort. Available at https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/distraction/Pages/default.aspx (last accessed on 10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is also participating as a liaison for a task group formed by
the Car Connectivity Consortium (CCC), the developers of Mirror Link,
to discuss the technical issues of device pairing, integration,
testing, and certification. Mirror Link represents a major industry
effort to enable and promote device pairing in vehicles. This effort
began in November 2014.
In addition to these formal industry efforts to produce best
practices, guidelines, and recommendations, several companies and
groups have demonstrated various technical solutions for aspects of the
distracted driving problem to NHTSA. These solutions include a driver
mode for portable devices, anti-texting software applications that
provide the capability to lock out the portable device screen, and
driver distinction technologies that are both vehicle- and portable-
device based. Each of these topics was included in NHTSA's Phase 2
Public Meeting in March 2014.
3. Public Meeting on the Phase 2 Distraction Guidelines
On March 12, 2014, NHTSA hosted a public meeting to bring together
vehicle manufacturers and suppliers, portable and aftermarket device
manufacturers, portable and aftermarket device operating system
providers, cellular service providers, industry associations,
application developers, researchers, and consumer groups to discuss
technical issues regarding the agency's development of Phase 2 Driver
Distraction Guidelines for portable and aftermarket devices. The
transcript for the public meeting and webcast video can be found in the
docket for today's proposed guidelines,\66\ along with
[[Page 87669]]
copies of all presentations and spoken remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0137, ``Driver Distraction Guidelines
(Phase 2) for Portable and After-Market Devices Public Meeting
Agenda and Presentations '' ID: NHTSA-2013-0137-0004. Available at
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NHTSA-2013-0137 (last
accessed on 10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the public meeting, NHTSA presented an overview of the Phase 1
Driver Distraction Guidelines and the key technical issues in Phase 2.
CTA presented a summary of its efforts to develop industry-based best
practices for portable and aftermarket devices that could be used by
drivers inside the vehicle. Following these presentations, there were
three panels of invited experts who addressed the following technical
topics: (1) Vehicle and portable/aftermarket device pairing, (2) Driver
Mode and advanced technologies, and (3) technologies that automatically
distinguish between devices used by drivers and passengers.
In its presentation about the Distraction Guidelines, NHTSA
highlighted the guiding principles for the guidelines along with the
technical approaches to Phases 1 and 2. NHTSA emphasized pairing
between the vehicle and portable devices as a means for incorporating
portable and aftermarket devices under the Phase 1 Distraction
Guidelines. NHTSA also discussed Driver Mode as an approach for
unpaired portable devices. NHTSA encouraged the development of
technology that can distinguish driver portable device use from
passenger portable device use. NHTSA noted that similar test procedures
and acceptance thresholds from Phase 1 would be applied to Phase 2.
Other issues under consideration for the Phase 2 Distraction Guidelines
included applicability to head-up displays and wearable devices, any
additional per se lock outs that might be required for portable and
aftermarket devices, placement of the portable device for testing, and
continuous display information that does not meet the Phase 1 task
definition. NHTSA concluded its presentation by highlighting the
general process for publishing the Phase 2 Distraction Guidelines.
Following NHTSA's presentation, CTA gave a presentation on its
Driver-Device Interface Working Group and activities for generating
industry-based best practices. In its presentation at the public
meeting, CTA noted that it believes best practices developed by
industry collaboration have the greatest chance of success in the
marketplace. Additionally, CTA recommended pairing. As of mid-2014, the
Working Group modified its objective, choosing to develop a technology
inventory instead of guidelines or recommendations.
The pairing panel consisted of presentations by General Motors,
Toyota, Delphi, and the Car Connectivity Consortium. The Driver Mode
and Advanced Technologies panel consisted of presentations by AT&T,
Garmin, and Pioneer. The Driver-Passenger Distinction panel consisted
of presentations by Cellcontrol, Cellepathy, and Lakeland Ventures
Development-Takata. NHTSA conducted a period of questions and answers
from the panelists after the presentations. NHTSA received additional
comments from Consumers Union, Origo, and Vesstech that were read from
the floor. Each of these presentations and spoken remarks can be found
in the Phase 2 docket.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0137, ``Driver Distraction Guidelines
(Phase 2) for Portable and After-Market Devices Public Meeting
Agenda and Presentations'' ID: NHTSA-2013-0137-0004. Available at
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NHTSA-2013-0137 (last
accessed on 10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: In response to the public meeting, eight comments were
posted to the docket by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
(Alliance), Blackberry Limited, CTIA--The Wireless Association, General
Motors, Life Apps, the National Safety Council, Vesstech, and Consumers
Union. Seven of the eight commenters supported NHTSA's Phase 2
Distraction Guidelines, with only CTIA recommending that solutions to
portable device-based driver distraction be left solely to industry
collaborations. CTIA also challenged NHTSA's authority to issue
regulations, or even voluntary guidelines, for portable devices. The
Alliance and General Motors urged NHTSA to complete Phase 2 as soon as
possible, and the Alliance suggested NHTSA combine Phases 1 and 2 into
a single set of NHTSA Distraction Guidelines. The National Safety
Council requested NHTSA reconsider the three-phase approach to the
distraction guidelines and to consider the full body of driver
distraction literature rather than focusing solely on visual-manual
distraction. Specifically, the National Safety Council urged NHTSA to
include cognitive distraction issues in Phase 2 along with the visual-
manual that were the focus of the Phase 1 Distraction Guidelines. CTIA
commented that translating the Phase 1 Distraction Guidelines to
portable devices is infeasible, partly due to the complex ecosystem
surrounding portable devices, and that education and legislative
approaches to the distraction problem should be the government's focus.
The Alliance, Blackberry Limited, General Motors, and Consumers
Union all supported NHTSA's emphasis on paired solutions. The Alliance
reiterated findings from research that quantified the extent to which
consumers are ``connected'' in their daily lives, including while
driving. The Alliance highlighted this research, which was posted to
the Phase 1 Docket, as additional support for pairing or tethering
solutions. The Alliance also highlighted that some of its members were
already working towards pairing solutions, and that the Car
Connectivity Consortium was a formal industry organization working
towards that end. General Motors mentioned its own efforts towards
paired solutions. Blackberry Limited urged NHTSA to consider the ITU-T
draft set of industry-generated recommendations for information and
communications technologies. Consumers Union described its findings on
various existing pairing solutions, and specifically how easy or user-
friendly the pairing process was for drivers. Blackberry Limited
offered several specific suggestions for NHTSA to consider about
pairing solutions and Driver Mode.
The response to Driver Mode solution was mixed, with the Alliance
stating that the only acceptable Driver Mode was the portable device in
the ``off'' setting, and that Driver Mode ``apps'' that drivers must
choose to engage are not realistic solutions. Blackberry Limited,
Consumers Union, and Life Apps provided specific recommendations or
support for Driver Mode implementations. Blackberry Limited had
specific suggestions regarding pairing and Driver Mode, and urged NHTSA
to not recommend less stringent guidelines for Driver Mode, but also
not to include specific technological approaches (i.e., the specific
wireless communication protocol between the portable device and the
vehicle) in the Phase 2 Distraction Guidelines. CTIA also noted the
fact that several driver mode ``apps,'' or applications that otherwise
limit portable device functionality while driving, are currently
available is evidence that industry is working towards solutions to the
distraction problem with portable devices, and therefore NHTSA's
guidelines are unnecessary.
The Alliance supported NHTSA's inclusion of driver-passenger
distinction technology and urged NHTSA to establish a cooperative
research program
[[Page 87670]]
with industry to foster technological development in this area.
Some commenters in the public meeting had specific implementation
suggestions for portable device-use while driving. For example, the
National Safety Council suggested NHTSA require portable devices have
an option to quickly turn the portable device off while driving. Life
Apps highlighted an approach that uses the portable device only, which
does not require hardware components to detect that the driver is using
the device when driving. Vesstech argued for a solution that included
mandatory vocal warnings to be automatically spoken to drivers. It
suggested that the emotional content relayed by the human voice would
be an effective deterrent that would discourage portable device use
while driving. CTIA argued that education, legislation, and technical
innovation are the best ways to address distraction from portable
devices, and listed the ways in which they have been active in each
area.
Agency Response: NHTSA is considering combining Phase 1 and 2
Guidelines, to the extent practicable. As discussed previously, we seek
comment on the combination of the Phase 1 and 2 Guidelines. A statement
of NHTSA's authority to issue voluntary, non-binding guidance is
included in Section V of this notice.
NHTSA provided a detailed explanation and rationale for the focus
on visual-manual distraction in the Phase 1 Guidelines,\68\ which
addresses the National Safety Council's suggestion that NHTSA include
the full-range of distraction and associated research literature,
namely cognitive distraction. NHTSA recognizes the importance of
experimental research findings, such as those using driving simulators,
that show decreased driving performance for distractions of all types.
Both naturalistic driving studies (such as NHTSA's 2013 cell phone
naturalistic driving study \69\) and experimental studies consistently
show that visual-manual distraction contributes to degraded driving
performance and a significantly elevated crash risk. While the full
body of research data is less conclusive with respect to cognitive
distraction, the agency continues to be actively engaged in reviewing
the latest research findings. In May 2015, NHTSA hosted an event called
``Cognitive Distraction: What Were You Thinking?'' \70\ that brought
members of the international research community and safety advocates
together to discuss what cognitive distraction is, how to measure it,
and what to do about it. NHTSA is also currently conducting a
significant amount of research related to auditory-vocal (i.e., voice-
based) system interfaces, as well as a study to explore ways of
measuring internal cognitive distraction (e.g., mind wandering) while
driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 78 FR 24817 (Apr. 26, 2013), pp. 24836-24838.
\69\ Fitch, G., et al. (2013). The Impact of Hand-Held and
Hands-Free Cell Phone Use on Driving Performance and Safety-Critical
Event Risk (DOT HS 811 757). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
\70\ Presentations and video recording of the event can be found
at the NHTSA Web site: https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/symposiums/may2015/ (last accessed on 10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has reviewed each of the detailed recommendations from the
various commenters on both pairing and driver mode. Some of those
recommendations are consistent with NHTSA's goal of remaining neutral
regarding specific technological approaches to pairing and to Driver
Mode activation, and therefore are reflected in these proposed Phase 2
Guidelines. At NHTSA's public meeting, participants on the Driver-
Passenger Distinction panel presented different technological
approaches to identifying which vehicle occupant is using a portable
device. Most approaches use a combination of hardware and software
installed in the vehicle and on the portable device to determine
whether the device user is a driver or passenger.
One approach involved a piece of hardware that creates zones within
a vehicle by emitting signals. The driver's seating position would have
a different signal that could be identified by software and/or hardware
on a portable device. Identifying the driver's position with this
method would potentially allow the device to activate the driver mode
only for the driver while he or she is driving. This signal could vary
depending on the transmission state.
Another driver-passenger distinction technology uses capacitive
sensors within the seats that allow the vehicle to detect where
portable devices are being used within a vehicle. These sensors are
able to determine if each occupant is holding and using a portable
device by utilizing the conductivity of the human body. By detecting if
a driver is using a portable device, the vehicle can tell the portable
device to activate the driver mode. Driver Mode can be activated
depending on the state of the vehicle's transmission (i.e., park vs.
drive).
Finally, a device-only solution uses an authentication task
approach where a device automatically goes into a limited use state
(e.g., Driver Mode) at a speed threshold, and a quick, but challenging
task is required to re-enable full functionality on the device. These
authentication tasks are designed to be quick and easy for non-drivers,
but nearly impossible to complete successfully within the short time
limit for drivers.
NHTSA recognizes that there may be other concepts to achieve
driver-passenger distinction that were not presented in the Public
Meeting, but those presented provide an example of how this capability
can be achieved technologically. Accordingly, NHTSA continues to
monitor the development and progress of driver-passenger distinction
technologies, and seeks input on how to foster the refinement of that
technology to enhance reliable and automatic Driver Mode solutions for
unpaired portable devices. For example, the Alliance recommended
establishing a cooperative research program. The agency seeks comments
from all stakeholders on what specific research needs remain to
progress driver-passenger distinction technology to full maturity.
All presentations and comments from the NHTSA Phase 2 Public
Meeting are available for download in the Phase 2 docket,\71\ along
with the transcript of the meeting and a link to the recorded webcast
of the meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0137, ``Driver Distraction Guidelines
(Phase 2) for Portable and After-Market Devices Public Meeting
Agenda and Presentations '' ID: NHTSA-2013-0137-0004. Available at
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NHTSA-2013-0137 (last
accessed on 10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Distraction Guidelines for Portable and Aftermarket Devices
A. Scope
1. Devices/Device Interfaces
The proposed Phase 2 Guidelines would apply to the visual-manual
interfaces of portable and aftermarket devices that may be used by a
driver. A ``portable device'' is defined as a device that can
reasonably be expected to be brought into a vehicle on a trip-by-trip
basis and used in the vehicle by a driver while driving, that is
electrically powered, and that has one or more of the following
capabilities:
Allows user interaction.
Enters, sends, and/or receives information.
Displays information in a visual and/or auditory manner,
or
Displays graphical, photographic, and/or video images.
The agency has tentatively concluded that this definition sets out
the appropriate scope for the types of device
[[Page 87671]]
interfaces that should be covered by the Phase 2 Guidelines, i.e., the
interfaces of portable electronic devices that are likely to be used by
drivers when driving. Examples of portable devices covered by the
proposed Phase 2 Guidelines are smartphones, tablets, and navigation
devices. The recommendations to manufacturers in these guidelines are
intended to focus on devices used by drivers while driving. NHTSA seeks
comment on whether clarification/revisions to the provisions in this
guidance document are necessary to ensure that passengers/non-drivers
are not inadvertently impacted by this guidance document. In other
words, NHTSA seeks to ensure that passengers (including front
passengers) are able to use their devices and applications without
disruption.
Additionally, this definition would include some of the new
portable technology that is beginning to appear, such as wearable
technology (electronic devices with interfaces that are worn on and
move with the body) and certain non-OE, head-up displays (HUDs).\72\
Wearable technology includes wristwatch computers and optical head-
mounted displays (OHMD). Although OHMD and HUD interfaces are
classified as portable or aftermarket devices and would therefore be
covered by the Phase 2 Guidelines, the agency notes that there are
issues with applying the Phase 1 glance-based metrics to measure the
level of visual distraction associated with the use of these devices.
The most significant issue with applying Phase 1 acceptance tests to
OHMD and HUD is that the performance criteria for measuring distraction
is eyes-off-road time and the information from these technologies is
displayed either directly in front of the driver's eyes (OHMD) or on
the windshield in front of the driver (HUD). While the driver may
appear to be looking toward the forward roadway, the driver's eyes
would actually be focused at a different focal distance that
corresponds to the displayed OHMD/HUD information. This means that in
testing it may not be possible to reliably discern whether the driver's
eyes are focused on the roadway or the information displayed on the
OHMD/HUD, which confounds the ability to evaluate eye glance behavior
to the task acceptance criteria. The agency is concerned that although
these devices might tend to keep the eyes oriented toward the forward
roadway, the presentation of information in front of the driver may
still result in visual distraction causing the eyes to be focused on
the displayed information rather than on the road (e.g., visual
accommodation changes to view the presented information could result in
the driver's view of the forward roadway being out of focus).
Accordingly, the agency has begun research on these devices to
determine whether their use impacts vehicle safety and, if so, what
visual attention metrics might be used to explain the effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ HUDs for motor vehicles project information onto the
windshield in front of the driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, NHTSA recognizes that many of these new portable devices
are released as pre-production versions, thereby allowing the market to
update, refine, and shape the maturation of the technology. NHTSA seeks
comment on portable device product cycles along with software updating
processes to better understand the evolving stakeholder landscape.
For the purposes of this Phase 2 proposal, an ``aftermarket
device'' is defined as a device designed to be or reasonably expected
to be installed or integrated into a vehicle after the vehicle is
manufactured, is electrically powered, and has one or more of the
following capabilities:
Allows user interaction.
Enters, sends, and/or receives information.
Displays information in a visual and/or auditory manner,
or
Displays graphical images, photographic images, and/or
video.
An example of an aftermarket device would be a non-OE head unit,
such as in-dash car audio/video systems or in-dash navigation systems.
NHTSA requests comments on its proposed definitions in the proposed
Phase 2 Guidelines.
The proposed Phase 2 Guidelines exclude several devices/device
interfaces, including the auditory-vocal portions of a portable or
aftermarket device interface,\73\ device or device functions specified
by law or government regulation, or devices manufactured primarily for
emergency response vehicles. These exclusions mirror those listed in
the Phase 1 Guidelines for OE in-vehicle interfaces. However, in
contrast to the Phase 1 Guidelines, NHTSA believes that the proposed
Phase 2 Guidelines do not necessarily need to be restricted by vehicle
weight and would apply to the interfaces of portable and aftermarket
devices used in medium and heavy vehicles (i.e., those with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds). The Phase 1
Guidelines excluded OE in-vehicle interfaces in these vehicles because
they are different than the interfaces in light vehicles (GVWR of
10,000 pounds or less) and additional research would be needed to
develop guidelines for medium and heavy vehicles. In contrast, NHTSA
does not believe that the same types of differences, if any, exist
between portable and aftermarket devices used in light vehicles versus
those used in heavy vehicles, and, therefore such an exclusion is not
warranted for the Phase 2 Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ NHTSA recognizes that current auditory-vocal interfaces are
multi-modal and include a combination of auditory-vocal and visual-
manual interactions. All visual-manual interactions are subject to
Phases 1 and 2 of the Distraction Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency also seeks comment on device interfaces that should or
should not be covered by the proposed Phase 2 Guidelines.
2. Tasks
The proposed Phase 2 Guidelines would be applicable to the same
types of visual-manual secondary tasks covered by the Phase 1
Guidelines, including all non-driving-related tasks and some driving-
related tasks (as noted earlier), specifically those that are neither
related to the safe operation and control of the vehicle nor involve
the use of a system required by law. Table 1 of the updated Phase 1
Guidelines \74\ published on September 14, 2014, contains a non-
exhaustive list of the types of non-driving-related tasks to which the
Guidelines would be applicable, including various communications,
entertainment, and information tasks. This table is repeated in Table 7
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0088. ``Guidelines for Reducing
Visual-Manual Driver Distraction during Interactions with
Integrated, In-Vehicle, Electronic Devices Version 1.01'' ID: NHTSA-
2014-0088-0002. Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2014-0088-0002 (last accessed on 10/4/16).
[[Page 87672]]
Table 7--Non-Driving-Related Tasks/Devices to Which These Guidelines
Apply
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of task Task/device
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communications.............. Caller Identification, Incoming Call
Management, Initiating and Terminating
Phone Calls, Conference Phoning, Two-Way
Radio Communications, Paging, Address
Book, Reminders, Text-Based
Communications, Social Media Messaging or
Posting.
Entertainment............... Radio (including but not limited to AM,
FM, and Satellite), Pre-recorded Music
Players, All Formats, Television, Video
Displays, Advertising, Internet Browsing,
News, Directory Services.
Information................. Clock, Temperature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the Phase 1 Guidelines, the Phase 2 Guidelines would not apply
to tasks performed by the driver as part of the safe operation and
control of the vehicle, including any task related to the proper use of
a driver safety warning system. Although the agency did not define the
term driver safety warning system in the Phase 1 Guidelines, the agency
is including a definition in the proposed Phase 2 Guidelines (that also
shall apply to Phase 1) because of the wide variety of portable and
aftermarket device applications that exist and the agency's concern
that applications with a questionable link to safety might be labeled
as driver safety warning systems. Accordingly, the proposed Phase 2
Guidelines define ``driver safety warning system'' as ``a system or
application that is intended to assist the driver in the avoidance or
mitigation of crashes.'' An example of a system that would fall within
this definition is a portable device application that uses the device's
features (e.g., GPS, accelerometer, or camera) to alert drivers of lane
departures or potential collisions.
Finally, the Phase 2 Guidelines apply to tasks that are clearly
bounded by start and end states as is discussed in the Phase 1
Guidelines (see section IV.B.9 on p. 24884). Displays that continuously
report a system state like speed or fuel economy status are unbounded
and are therefore not subject to the Phase 1 or 2 Guidelines.
B. Overview of the Phase 2 Guidelines
In order to address the vehicle safety problem posed by driver
distraction due to aftermarket and portable device usage, NHTSA
tentatively recommends the following in its Phase 2 Guidelines:
Portable device manufacturers incorporate pairing
capabilities and Driver Mode functions into their devices to reduce
driver distraction.
OEMs incorporate pairing capabilities into the design of
their vehicles
Manufacturers of aftermarket devices meet the requirements
as specified for OE interfaces in Phase 1.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ While the recommendation is that aftermarket devices meet
the Phase 1 Guidelines, this recommendation will be made in the
Phase 2 document. Therefore, aftermarket manufacturers would look to
the Phase 2 guidelines for recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1 depicts how the Phase 2 Guidelines apply to both portable
and aftermarket devices, including pairing and Driver Mode
configurations.
[[Page 87673]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05DE16.002
NHTSA recommends pairing a portable device with the in-vehicle
system (i.e., OE or installed aftermarket systems) to minimize the
potential distraction associated with operating a visual-manual
interface on a portable device. Vehicle manufacturers and the portable
device industry are already working together to incorporate pairing
between devices and vehicles, and the agency hopes that the Phase 2
Guidelines will accelerate those efforts.\76\ Pairing the device to the
vehicle would allow the driver to use the built-in displays and
controls. Assuming that the vehicle conforms to the Phase 1 Guidelines,
pairing would ensure that the visual-manual secondary tasks performed
by the driver while driving meet the time-based, eye-glance task
acceptance criteria specified in the Phase 1 Guidelines that is
intended to mitigate the risk of distracted driving. Pairing would also
ensure that certain activities that would inherently interfere with the
driver's ability to safely control the vehicle would be locked out
while driving (i.e., the ``per se lock outs'' referred to in the Phase
1 Guidelines and the proposed Phase 2 Guidelines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ https://www.engadget.com/2014/10/02/apple-carplay-comes-to-pioneer-stereos-as-spotify-adds-support/ (last accessed on 10/4/16).
https://www.engadget.com/2014/10/03/hondas-in-car-connect-system-does-android-its-own-way-hands-on/ (last accessed on 10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although NHTSA recommends that pairing a portable device with the
in-vehicle interface is the best way to mitigate the distraction
associated with operating a visual-manual portable device interface,
the agency acknowledges that there will be situations when pairing does
not occur, either because the in-vehicle system and/or portable device
does not possess the capability for pairing or because the driver
chooses not to pair with the in-vehicle system. In order to mitigate
the additional distraction associated with the use of an unpaired
portable device, the agency recommends that portable devices include a
Driver Mode that, when activated, will present an interface that
conforms with the Phase 1 Guidelines recommendations for electronic
devices used by the driver while driving. In particular, when a
portable device is in Driver Mode, the device should lock out tasks
that are among the Phase 1 Guidelines per se lock outs or do not meet
Phase 1 task acceptance criteria.
NHTSA seeks comment on this approach and whether additional per se
lock outs are appropriate for portable and aftermarket devices, whether
paired with the in-vehicle system or in Driver Mode.
NHTSA acknowledges that some devices, such as standalone portable
navigation devices, are designed for, and exist primarily for use in a
single context (e.g. navigation in a motor vehicle). These devices are
useful because they package both the hardware and a user interface in
one compact portable unit. For such a device designed primarily for use
while driving, pairing the device with the vehicle would not provide
any benefit since its native interface should meet the Driver Mode
recommendations and pairing is not required. For this reason, portable
navigation devices that do not have pairing capability would not be
expected to have a separate Driver Mode. NHTSA requests comments on
whether the assumptions for this recommendation are reasonable and
appropriate.
C. Pairing
1. Pairing Recommendations
The proposed Phase 2 Guidelines recommend that vehicle
manufacturers and portable device manufacturers should provide the
necessary mechanisms to easily enable pairing
[[Page 87674]]
between the portable device and the vehicle/in-vehicle system.\77\ In
order to reduce the potential for distraction associated with pairing
while also encouraging drivers to pair their devices, pairing should be
an easy-to-understand task that allows the driver to set up the
portable device to communicate with the in-vehicle system in the fewest
number of steps possible, even automatically if feasible. If a portable
device and vehicle pair easily, it is less likely that a user will
become discouraged and not attempt to pair a device with a vehicle.
NHTSA encourages all entities involved with the engineering and design
of pairing technologies to jointly develop compatible and efficient
processes that focus on improving the usability of connecting a
portable device with the in-vehicle system. The proposed Guidelines
further recommend that any required visual-manual interactions
necessary to pair the device should be disabled while driving in order
to avoid potential driver distraction. The agency encourages automatic
pairing between the portable device and in-vehicle system during and
after the initial setup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ For purposes of this discussion, ``in-vehicle system''
includes both OE and aftermarket headunits installed in a motor
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to ensure that a paired portable device's functions are
operated through the in-vehicle interface, which is intended and
designed specifically for the driving environment, the proposed Phase 2
Guidelines recommend that the visual interface of the portable device
be locked out when the portable device is paired to the in-vehicle
system, with the exception of access to emergency services and
emergency notifications. All non-emergency functions and applications
of the portable device should be operable exclusively through the in-
vehicle system's interface. A paired system with a compelling user
experience and features should discourage the need for the driver to
access or interact with the portable device while driving. NHTSA seeks
comment on displaying and operating all non-emergency paired device
functions through the in-vehicle interface and whether doing so creates
unintended consequences. NHTSA also seeks comment on how best to
accommodate passenger use of a paired portable device.
2. Privacy and Data Sharing for Paired Devices
The primary purpose of this document is to address driver
distraction and vehicle safety. However, NHTSA acknowledges that the
pairing recommendations may touch on potential privacy concerns
regarding the possibility of data transfer, sharing, and storage
between the vehicle, device, and off-board systems. The proposed
Guidelines do not recommend any particular method of pairing or specify
how automakers and the portable and aftermarket device industries
should address how information is shared and used. The agency
encourages industry to consider how privacy risks can be minimized as
part of the development and improvement of pairing systems.
Industry groups have begun to address the issue of privacy as the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Global Automakers published a
set of principles on November 12, 2014.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Association of
Global Automakers (2014). Consumer Privacy Protection Principles:
Privacy Principles for Vehicle Technologies and Services. Retrieved
from https://www.autoalliance.org/index.cfm?objectid=CC629950-6A96-11E4-866D000C296BA163 (last accessed on 10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of these potential issues, NHTSA seeks comment on how
information is shared between the vehicle, device, and off-board
systems when devices are paired with the vehicle, how the type of
information that is shared may change in the future, how this
information sharing effects privacy, and what role the Guidelines can
and should play in addressing these privacy issues.
3. Cybersecurity for Paired Devices
Designing portable devices so that they can be paired with motor
vehicles must be accompanied by appropriate cybersecurity measures.
Unless such care is taken, adding another Internet-connected device to
a vehicle's electronics system can introduce additional cybersecurity
vulnerabilities into a vehicle's computer systems.
Safeguarding the traveling public through a combination of measures
requiring and/or encouraging the incorporation of safety features and
systems in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment as well as
measures to protect the performance of those features and systems is
part of NHTSA's core mission. Equally important is identifying motor
vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment that create an
unreasonable risk of accidents occurring or unreasonable risk of death
or injury occurring in an accident because of deficiencies in design,
construction, or performance and requiring their recall and remedy.
These Guidelines do not suggest or recommend particular methods for
creating and maintaining an effective level of cybersecurity in motor
vehicles or in portable or aftermarket devices. NHTSA expects that
OEMs, portable device manufacturers, and aftermarket manufacturers to
be proactive and take the steps necessary to protect against present
and future motor vehicle cybersecurity threats. We seek comment on the
continuing steps that must be taken to ensure that pairing does not
adversely affect vehicle cybersecurity.
D. Driver Mode
Ideally, a Driver Mode would not be necessary since NHTSA believes
those functions related to the driving task should occur when the
device is paired with an in-vehicle system that conforms with the Phase
1 Guidelines. However, our data confirms what everyday observation
indicates: Many drivers routinely use their portable device(s) while
driving. The agency believes that over time as pairing becomes easier,
increased device pairing may help reduce this behavior, but is unlikely
to eliminate it, because not all vehicles will have been designed to
allow pairing and drivers may not choose to pair their devices. The
agency, therefore, believes it is necessary to propose guidelines that
attempt to reduce the risk associated with using an unpaired portable
device while driving. The agency believes that the proposed Driver Mode
outlined below, which suggests that the device's interface follow the
Phase 1 principles to the extent possible, is the best way to minimize
the distraction posed by these devices.
1. Driver Mode Recommendations
Driver Mode is a simplified interface for unpaired devices that
conforms to the Phase 1 Guidelines when being used by a person who is
driving. When in Driver Mode, the portable device should lock out any
visual-manual secondary tasks that do not meet the Phase 1 Guidelines,
either because they are per se lockouts or because they do not meet the
eye-glance-based task acceptance criteria using a modified version of
the Phase 1 task acceptance testing procedures described in Section V
of the Phase 2 Guidelines.
The Phase 1 Guidelines specify two different test options for
measuring the impact of performing a task on driving safety and
acceptance criteria for assessing whether a task interferes enough with
driver attention to be unsuitable for performance while driving. Either
test may be run to assess conformance with the guidelines. 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
[[Page 87675]]
attention (eyes off the road) and crash risk.
The first recommended test method measures the amount of time that
the driver's eyes are drawn away from the roadway during the
performance of the task. The proposed Phase 2 Guidelines, like the
Phase 1 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. NHTSA anticipates that
stakeholders (e.g., OS developers, portable device developers, and
application developers) will work together to ensure that applications
and features on portable devices intended for use while driving meet
the Phase 2 Guidelines. NHTSA requests comments on how this industry
process will develop and function.
The second test method uses a visual occlusion technique, and both
the Phase 1 and proposed Phase 2 Guidelines recommend that, when tested
with this method, devices be designed so that tasks can be completed in
a series of 1.5-second glances with a cumulative time of not more than
12 seconds.\79\ Both of these tests are part of the Phase 1 NHTSA
Guidelines and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance)
guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ As explained in detail in the Phase 1 Guidelines notices,
the 1.5-shutter open time periods used in the occlusion method
correspond to 2 second off-road glances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed discussions of how these thresholds were developed are
contained in the proposed Phase 1 Guidelines notice \80\ and the final
Phase 1 Guidelines notice.\81\ In summary, glances away from the
forward road scene greater than 2 seconds at a time are associated with
an increased risk of a crash or near crash. The total eyes off road
time criterion is based on the principle that a visual-manual secondary
task performed while driving should not exceed that associated with a
baseline reference task (in this case, the manual tuning of a radio).
NHTSA selected radio tuning as the reference task \82\ and determined
that the 85th percentile total eyes off road time (TEORT) associated
with radio tuning is 12 seconds. Recent testing conducted by the agency
to assess the proposed acceptance criteria for both the simulator and
occlusion procedures supports the use of 2-second individual glance
duration criterion and a12-second TEORT criterion (i.e., a ``2/12
Rule'').\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ 77 FR 11199 (Feb. 24, 2012).
\81\ 78 FR 24817 (Apr. 26, 2013).
\82\ The concept of a reference task and the use of radio tuning
originated with the Alliance Guidelines, 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.
\83\ Ranney, T., Baldwin, S., Smith, L., Martin, J., & Mazzae,
E. (2013). Driver Behavior During Visual-Manual Secondary Task
Performance: Occlusion Method Versus Simulated Driving (DOT HS 811
726). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has tentatively concluded that because the crash risk
associated with distraction caused by vehicle OE interfaces and
portable devices is borne out of similar visual-manual interaction
between the driver and the device, the Phase 2 Guidelines should apply
the Phase 1 Guidelines to the proposed Driver Mode. In other words,
because a driver would be diverting his or her attention away from the
road to an area within reach and view of the driver compartment, a
recommendation for a portable device in Driver Mode should be similar
to that of in-vehicle systems.
In addition to the recommendations regarding per se lock outs and
the task acceptance criteria, the proposed Phase 2 Guidelines recommend
that when in Driver Mode, portable device interfaces conform to the
following Phase 1 Guidelines recommendations:
No Obstruction of View
Easy to See and Reach
Sound Level
Single-Handed Operation
Interruptibility
Device Response Time
Disablement
Distinguish Tasks of Functions not intended for use while
driving
Device Status
Due to the differences between integrated OE interfaces and
portable devices, the proposed Phase 2 Guidelines do not include the
Phase 1 recommendations related to maximum downward viewing angle,
lateral position of visual displays, and minimum size of displayed text
information. These recommendations relate to the placement of the
interface or the size of the interface text given that placement.
Because the placement of a portable device in a vehicle is determined
by the owner or driver of the vehicle rather than the device
manufacturer or software designer, the agency has tentatively concluded
that, as it cannot know for certain where, how, or if the device will
be mounted, these recommendations are not appropriate for portable
devices.
Despite this fact, the agency still believes it is necessary to
propose a repeatable test that would allow the agency to determine what
devices conform with the proposed Driver Mode. Such a test, even if it
does not reflect how all drivers use portable devices in all
circumstances, would, nevertheless, provide the agency with a benchmark
to measure conformance across a wide variety of different devices. The
agency proposes that manufacturers test unpaired portable devices,
including those in Driver Mode, in a location within a vehicle that, to
the greatest extent possible, conforms to the recommendations
enumerated in Phase 1 (i.e. no obstruction of view, easy to see and
reach) and do not result in the portable device interfering with airbag
deployment zones or safe operation of the vehicle controls. The agency
believes that this is a repeatable means to address Driver Mode
conformance, which may be representative of how the device may be
mounted in the vehicle by a driver. The agency acknowledges that some
drivers may not mount their portable device and, instead use it while
holding it in their hand. However, the agency does not believe it is
possible or desirable to create a repeatable test based on in-hand use.
The agency requests comments on differences between vehicle OE
interfaces and portable devices. Specifically, NHTSA would like to know
what, if any testing methods, stakeholders currently use (or suggest
using) to address the varying placements of a portable device inside an
automobile.
The Phase 1 Guidelines per se lock outs include activities that are
discouraged by public policy and, in some instances, prohibited by
Federal regulation or State law (e.g., entering or displaying text
messages), and activities identified in industry driver distraction
guidelines that NHTSA agrees are likely to distract drivers
significantly (e.g., automatically scrolling text). The per se lock
outs also address 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
(e.g., displaying video or certain images). Below is a detailed
description of the per se lock outs taken from the Phase 1 Guidelines:
\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ 78 FR 24817 (Apr. 26, 2013), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/04/26/2013-09883/visual-manual-nhtsa-driver-distraction-guidelines-for-in-vehicle-electronic-devices (last accessed on 10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 87676]]
Device functions and tasks not intended to be used by a
driver while driving.
Manual Text Entry. Manual text entry by the driver for the
purpose of text-based messaging, other communication, or internet
browsing.
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: \85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Certain exceptions to the video per se lock out are not
listed here because it is unlikely that a portable or aftermarket
device's interface would include that type of functionality (e.g.,
rearview images used to aid the driver performing a maneuver in
which the vehicle's transmission is in reverse gear). However, all
of the display of video per se lock out exceptions listed in the
Phase 1 Guidelines would also be applicable to portable and
aftermarket devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Displaying Images. Displaying (or permitting the display
of) non-video graphical or photographic images.
Exceptions:
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.
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.
Internationally standardized symbols and icons, as well as
TrademarkTM and Registered[supreg] symbols, are not
considered static graphical or photographic images.
Automatically Scrolling Text. The display of scrolling
(either horizontally or vertically) text that is moving at a pace not
controlled by the driver.
Displaying Text to Be Read. The visual presentation 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
Exception:
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 is
determined by the eye-glance-based acceptance tests.
The agency requests comment on the applicability of the Phase 1 per
se lock outs to portable devices. Are additional exceptions needed for
certain portable device tasks? Are there additional portable device
tasks that should be included in the per se lock outs if the device has
a Phase 1 Guidelines-conforming Driver Mode interface?
2. Driver Mode Activation
The Phase 2 Guidelines' proposed recommendations regarding the
activation of the Driver Mode would differ significantly from the Phase
1 Guideline's recommendations in terms of when OE in-vehicle devices
should lock out certain tasks and meet certain other device
recommendations.
In particular, the Phase 1 Guidelines recommend that OE in-vehicle
devices should lock out certain tasks from performance by the driver
while ``driving.'' ``Driving'' is defined as whenever a vehicle's means
of propulsion is activated unless the vehicle's transmission is in the
``Park'' position or, for manual transmission vehicles, the vehicle's
transmission is in the ``neutral'' position, the parking brake is
engaged, and the vehicle's speed is less than 5 mph.
This definition was based on definitions used in various statutes,
regulations, and Executive Orders related to distracted driving,\86\
which defined driving as operating a vehicle on an active roadway with
the motor running, including while temporarily stationary because of
traffic, traffic control devices, etc. The agency was also concerned
that limiting ``driving'' to when a vehicle is traveling above a
certain speed could result in drivers performing distracting tasks at
low speeds, creating an increased risk of a crash at signal- or sign-
controlled intersections and in traffic. Accordingly, by using existing
definitions as a foundation, the agency developed a definition that is
based on information known to, or able to be detected by vehicle
systems: Transmission position, vehicle speed, and the status of the
parking brake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(9)(A); 49 CFR 392.80, Executive Order
13513, ``Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging While
Driving,'' October 1, 2009; MAP-21 Public Law 112-114, 126 Stat. 405
(July 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In analyzing how to apply the Phase 1 Guidelines to portable and
aftermarket devices, the agency has determined activation of Driver
Mode is dependent upon the technologies and features present, as well
as the level of communication between a portable/aftermarket device and
a vehicle. Based on these considerations, the agency has developed two
alternative methods for activating Driver Mode.
The first option, and the one encouraged by the agency, is
automatic activation, meaning that Driver Mode automatically engages
within a reasonable period of time when the portable device by itself
or in conjunction with the vehicle distinguishes that it is being used
by a driver while driving. If desired, the user would have the ability
to deactivate or opt-out of automatic engagement of Driver Mode. Like
the ``driving'' condition described in the Phase 1 Guidelines, this
definition is based on information (e.g., vehicle speed) that can be
determined by the portable device if it has the appropriate sensors
like GPS to measure the speed of the motor vehicle, or if the
information is transmitted from the vehicle to the portable device. The
Phase 1 definition of driving may be suitable if the automatic
distinction technology can also access speed or transmission state
information directly from the vehicle. Examples of automatic
distinction technologies that had direct connection to the vehicle, and
therefore could have access to vehicle speed or transmission state,
were presented at NHTSA's Phase 2 Public Meeting.\87\ The agency
requests comment on whether the final guidelines should include
specific triggering factors or a specific timeframe for Driver Mode to
automatically
[[Page 87677]]
activate, such as the vehicle speed (e.g., a speed that can reasonably
be attributed to a motor vehicle as opposed to non-motorized
transportation) at which an automatic activation would engage, as well
as other potential triggering factors. Additionally, NHTSA requests
comment on the 5 mph speed threshold applicable to the definition of
``driving'' for vehicles without a ``Park'' position (e.g. manual
transmission vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0137, ``Driver Distraction Guidelines
(Phase 2) for Portable and After-Market Devices Public Meeting
Agenda and Presentations'' ID: NHTSA-2013-0137-0004. Available at
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NHTSA-2013-0137 (last
accessed on 10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency recognizes that automatic activation technologies are
still in the process of being refined, and, without the ability to
reliably detect whether the device user is the driver or a passenger,
may be overly annoying to device users. Accordingly, the agency is
proposing a second option, voluntary activation, meaning that the
Driver Mode is activated in a simple manner by the user. In other
words, under this option, Driver Mode is manually activated by the
driver rather than automatically. The agency expects technologies that
support automatic Driver Mode activation to be implemented as soon as
practicable. In order to provide flexibility, NHTSA has not included
any additional specific recommendations on how activation of Driver
Mode should be designed. The agency requests comment on whether
additional specification should be included in the final guidelines.
Recognizing that some drivers may choose not to activate Driver
Mode, and accordingly, not reduce the distraction potential of the
portable device, the agency foresees driver-initiated activation being
a temporary option in the Phase 2 Guidelines until driver-passenger
distinction technology is more developed and widely available. The
agency expects such technology to be implemented as soon as
practicable. The agency recognizes the inherent limitations of a
driver-activated Driver Mode and seeks comment on alternative
approaches to Driver Mode activation as a temporary option until
driver-passenger distinction technology is implemented.
E. Aftermarket Devices
The US DOT's Blueprint for ending Distracted Driving specified that
aftermarket electronic devices would be addressed in NHTSA's Phase 2
Guidelines. In line with the Blueprint, the Phase 2 Guidelines propose
to make recommendations for aftermarket devices. Tentatively, the
agency concludes that recommendations applicable to OE manufacturers in
the Phase 1 Guidelines shall be recommendations to aftermarket
electronic device manufacturers.
Aftermarket devices include communication, entertainment, or
navigation devices that are designed to be or would be reasonably
expected to be installed or integrated after the vehicle is
manufactured, are often incorporated into existing OE slots in the
dashboard or are permanently affixed to the top surface of the
dashboard. Examples of aftermarket devices include in-dash car stereos/
receivers and in-dash navigation devices. While aftermarket devices are
addressed in the same guideline document as portable devices, there are
notable differences between portable and aftermarket devices. As
aftermarket devices are typically hardwired into a vehicle, they are
not likely to be moved in and out of a vehicle like portable devices.
Additionally, because there is a physical link between an aftermarket
device and the vehicle, there is no need for any pairing
recommendation, as the vehicle and aftermarket device are linked by
virtue of installation.
With regard to placement within the vehicle, the installation
location of an aftermarket device is likely to be either on the
dashboard or in a vacated spot in the dash previously occupied by an OE
interface. NHTSA has tentatively concluded that because the crash risk
associated with distraction caused by OE interfaces and aftermarket
devices is borne out of similar visual-manual interaction from the same
location in a vehicle, the Phase 2 Guidelines should apply the Phase 1
guidelines to aftermarket devices. In many cases, aftermarket devices
serve as replacement devices for vehicle OE systems, replacing the
function of OE units while occupying the same location within a
vehicle. NHTSA is seeking comment on this approach.
IV. Expected Effects of the Phase 2 Guidelines
NHTSA's overall expectation for the Phase 2 Distraction Guidelines
is to provide a safety framework for developers of portable and
aftermarket electronic devices and applications to use when developing
their systems that will reduce driver distraction through two specific
technological means. First, NHTSA envisions easy pairing solutions for
users of portable devices in their vehicles that will result in
accelerated growth and acceptance of pairing, leading to pairing
implementations throughout entire vehicle lineups and trim levels.
Pairing solutions should become seamless, thereby fostering highly
efficient interactions between the drivers, portable devices, and in-
vehicle electronics systems. Second, NHTSA expects these guidelines
will encourage the further growth and innovation of automatic driver
distinction technologies that will enable more practical and pervasive
Driver Mode implementations for portable devices in unpaired scenarios.
The development of automatic driver distinction technologies and
consequently Driver Mode interfaces should result in reduced
distraction when used by drivers while driving. Again, the agency's
goal is that information available to the driver inside the vehicle
will not cause an unsafe level of distraction to the driver (either by
functions being locked out or conforming to the applicable Phase 1
Guidelines' 2/12 performance criteria).
In addition, NHTSA expects that through these guidelines,
automotive OEMs, application developers, portable and aftermarket
device manufacturers, operating system providers, wireless carriers,
and all involved stakeholders will jointly work together with the
primary goal of reducing fatalities, injuries, and crashes attributable
to the use of portable and aftermarket devices by drivers. NHTSA
expects that the proposed guidelines will serve as a framework for
stakeholders to continue developing a variety of technologies and
designs that reduce visual-manual distraction while driving.
Ultimately, these proposed Guidelines will raise awareness of driver
distraction and elevate vehicle safety to a top priority within the
product development processes for these wide-ranging organizations.
A. Estimated Time for Conformance
NHTSA wants to make it absolutely clear that since its Driver
Distraction Guidelines are voluntary and non-binding, they do not have
a ``lead time'' in the same way that a FMVSS or other regulation has a
lead time. Portable and aftermarket device manufacturers, application
developers, and vehicle manufacturers are not required to meet the
NHTSA Guidelines.
NHTSA stated that it anticipated vehicle manufacturers would
incorporate Phase 1 conformance into their normally scheduled
production cycles, and therefore NHTSA anticipates seeing production
vehicles that conform to Phase 1 Guidelines no sooner than three years
from the publication of Phase 1. NHTSA recognizes that the production
cycles for portable devices are dramatically shorter than for vehicles;
therefore NHTSA seeks comment on reasonable conformance testing timing
for Phase 2. We believe 16 months is appropriate given the speed at
which technology changes and the time needed to benchmark product
against
[[Page 87678]]
the final guidelines. We understand that a portable device's ability to
pair with a vehicle inherently requires some coordination with vehicle
OEMs. We request comment on the appropriateness of this timeframe.
The agency also notes that the Guidelines are just one of many
efforts by both government and industry to address the distracted
driving problem. The NHTSA Distraction Plan \88\ describes the Agency's
comprehensive approach to the distraction problem. NHTSA has approached
the driver distraction problem from multiple fronts, from a better
understanding of the issue of distraction by improving the quality of
data on the incidence, prevalence, and crash risk from distraction, to
public service messages (e.g., ``One text or call could wreck it
all''), to working with states on enforcement programs and improving
laws, to producing the Distraction Guidelines. Industry has also worked
hard to promote anti-driver-distraction awareness and message
campaigns, as well as working toward guidance and tools for less
distracting devices and built-in user interfaces. NHTSA's Guidelines
are an important complementary effort against driver distraction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ NHTSA. (2010). Overview of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's Driver Distraction Program, (DOT HS 811
299). Available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/811299.pdf (last accessed on 10/4/16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. NHTSA Monitoring of Portable and Aftermarket Device Conformance With
the Guidelines
NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Research intends to perform future
monitoring to assess conformance to our Driver Distraction Guidelines.
Whereas the details of this monitoring have yet to be determined, we
plan to test actual production vehicles, and production portable and
aftermarket devices. Vehicles, portable and aftermarket devices, and
applications will be selected for such monitoring so that they
represent a representative portion of makes and models available for
public consumption. NHTSA envisions that these test results would be
made available to the public.
V. Authority To Issue the Phase 2 Guidelines
The agency's authority to issue the voluntary, non-binding \89\
Phase 2 Guidelines is clear under both the Highway Safety Act and the
Vehicle Safety Act.\90\ NHTSA's statutory mandate is to reduce traffic
accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents.\91\
To carry out this mandate, NHTSA is authorized to conduct and act on
both behavioral safety and vehicle safety research. Congress directed
the Secretary of Transportation, through amendments to the Highway
Safety Act, to assist and cooperate with private industry (among
others) to increase highway safety.\92\ Additionally, the Vehicle
Safety Act states NHTSA ``shall conduct research, development, and
testing on any area or aspect of motor vehicle safety necessary to
carry out this chapter.'' \93\ More specifically, NHTSA ``shall . . .
conduct motor vehicle safety research, development, and testing
programs and activities, including activities related to new and
emerging technologies that impact or may impact motor vehicle safety.''
\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law
114-94, 24406 (2015) (``No guidelines issued by the Secretary with
respect to motor vehicle safety shall confer any rights on any
person, State, or locality, nor shall operate to bind the Secretary
or any person to the approach recommended in such guidelines'').
\90\ We note that questions have been raised by, among others,
CTA and CTIA concerning NHTSA's authority to regulate portable
devices and applications. Although not at issue in these voluntary
guidelines, the agency points out that it has such authority to the
extent these technologies function as ``motor vehicle equipment'' as
defined by the Vehicle Safety Act. That said, NHTSA does not have
any current plans to develop such regulations and, as we explain
throughout, the guidelines proposed today are not regulations, but
are rather voluntary and non-binding.
\91\ 49 U.S.C. 30101 (``The purpose of this chapter is to reduce
traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic
accidents. Therefore it is necessary--(1) to prescribe motor vehicle
safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in
interstate commerce; and (2) to carry out needed safety research and
development.''). Delegated to NHTSA at 49 CFR 1.95.
\92\ 23 U.S.C. 401. Delegated to NHTSA at 49 CFR 1.95.
\93\ 49 U.S.C. 30181. Delegated to NHTSA at 49 CFR 1.95.
\94\ 49 U.S.C. 30182 (``Powers and duties''). Sections 30181-
30182 were added to the Safety Act by the Moving Ahead for Progress
in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141, 31204 (2012).
Prior to this, the Safety Act provisions authorizing NHTSA's motor
vehicle safety research and development were contained in Sec.
30168. MAP-21 deleted Sec. 30168 as redundant material. See MAP-21
Sec. 31204. Delegated to NHTSA at 49 CFR 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By issuing these Guidelines, NHTSA seeks to fulfill its duties
under both the Highway Safety Act and the Vehicle Safety Act. The
foundation for these Guidelines is the agency research on distraction
caused by portable and aftermarket devices, and our evaluation of
research from other experts. The agency believes that today's
guidelines are an effective way of expressing NHTSA's research
conclusions. Encapsulating and publishing research results in the form
of recommendations, best practices, or guidelines is not novel for this
agency.\95\ Further, these Guidelines are a way for NHTSA to provide
private industry with assistance on practical ways of applying the
existing research to their portable application/device designs so as to
encourage their customers to use these devices and applications
appropriately when in the motor vehicle. Moreover, by releasing these
guidelines for public comment, we are cooperating with private industry
and other members of the public toward increasing highway safety in
this important area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See, e.g., Effectiveness and Acceptance of Enhanced Seat
Belt Reminder Systems: Characteristics of Optimal Reminder Systems
Final Report, DOT HS 811 097, Sec. 5.4 (``Recommended System
Characteristics'') (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we note that in recently enacting the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation Act,\96\ Congress included a provision
regarding the agency's ability to issue non-binding guidance. While the
provision provides that ``[n]othing in the subsection shall be
construed to confer any authority upon or negate any authority of the
Secretary to issue guidelines under this chapter,'' we note that the
only such guidelines that the agency has issued or announced plans to
issue in recent years are those relating to distraction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Public Law 114-94, 24406 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As NHTSA has stated in various agency documents, the guidelines for
portable devices are a crucial part of a comprehensive, multi-pronged
effort to address driver distraction. Taking a comprehensive approach
that addresses behavioral, technological, and environmental risk
factors is standard practice in the injury prevention field.\97\ While
the states' achievements in addressing the behavioral aspects of
distracted driving are commendable, we believe more needs to be done to
address the other two types of risk factors. As we mentioned earlier,
the 2014 statistics show that, taking account of all different types of
distractions, a substantial portion (10%) of all fatal crashes still
involves at least one distracted driver. Further, a substantial portion
of distraction-affected fatal crashes (13%) involve cell phone use.
NHTSA estimates that 404 lives were lost in cell phone-involved fatal
crashes in that year. This represents 1.2 percent of traffic fatalities
for that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ The interrelationship of the elements of this practice is
graphically depicted in the well-known analytical and planning tool
known as the Haddon Matrix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we believe that private industry could effectively
complement the state efforts by addressing the technological risk
factors related to portable application/device use and
[[Page 87679]]
driving. Furthermore, the relationship between portable devices/
applications and driver distraction makes it incumbent upon the US DOT
to utilize NHTSA's safety expertise to assist private industry in
understanding and addressing issues related to the effects of portable
application/device design on driver behavior. The contribution of these
devices to driver distraction is an important and growing motor vehicle
safety challenge. However, manufacturers of these products generally do
not have motor vehicle safety expertise, or do not design their
products with full knowledge of the potential effects on driving,
especially those devices designed for general use, rather than
specifically for use while driving. In developing these guidelines in
consultation with industry and the public, NHTSA is using its expertise
regarding the variety of factors \98\ that adversely affect driver
performance to assist private industry in improving portable devices/
applications in ways that increase highway safety by making it easier
for the driver to avoid engaging in distracting behaviors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ In addition to distraction, these factors include problems
like fatigue, sleepiness, and intoxication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments should not be more than 15 pages long. (See 49 CFR
553.21.) We established this limit to encourage you to write your
primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach
necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on
the length of the attachments.
Comments may be submitted to the docket electronically by logging
onto the Docket Management System Web site at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
You may also submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and US DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly,
we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments.
OMB's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. The US DOT's guidelines may be accessed at
https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/statistical_policy_and_research/data_quality_guidelines/html/guidelines.html.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If a comment
is received too late for us to consider in developing the final
guidelines, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for
future guidelines.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on
the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
docket.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
VII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), all Federal agencies and departments must
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments, except when use of such a voluntary consensus standard
would be inconsistent with the law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, such as SAE International (SAE). The NTTAA directs
agencies to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
As part of the Phase 1 Guidelines, NHTSA identified a number of
voluntary consensus standards related to distracted driving. After
careful consideration, the agency incorporated several of these
standards into the test methods in the Phase 1 Guidelines: ISO
International Standard 15008:2003, ``Road vehicles--Ergonomic aspects
of transport information and control systems--Specifications and
compliance procedures for in-vehicle visual presentation''; ISO
International Standard 16673:2007(E), ``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
multiple versions of SAE Recommended Practice J941, ``Motor Vehicle
Drivers' Eye Locations,'' including SAE J941 (June 1992), SAE J941
(June 1997), SAE J941 (September 2002), SAE J941 (October 2008), and
SAE J941 (March 2010). Because the proposed Phase 2 Guidelines involve
the use of the Phase 1 Guidelines test procedure, with several
modifications, as described in
[[Page 87680]]
detail above, these standards are, by extension, included by reference
in the Phase 2 Guidelines.
The agency requests comment on any other voluntary consensus
standards appropriate for use in these Guidelines.
Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for Portable and
Aftermarket Devices (Phase 2 Guidelines)
I. Purpose
The purpose of the NHTSA driver distraction guidelines is to reduce
the number of motor vehicle crashes and the resulting deaths and
injuries that occur due to a driver being distracted from the primary
driving task while performing secondary activities with a portable or
aftermarket device within the vehicle.
Phase 2 extends and tailors the recommendations specified in the
Phase 1 Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-
Vehicle Electronic Devices (henceforth referred to as ``Phase 1
Guidelines'') to cover portable and aftermarket devices. These
Guidelines are presented as an aid to vehicle manufacturers, portable
and aftermarket device manufacturers, developers, carriers, and
application developers in designing products that discourage unsafe
driver distraction resulting from use of the devices. Adherence to
these guidelines is voluntary and conformance with them is not
required.
A. Driver Responsibilities
These Guidelines are meant to reduce the potential distraction
associated with portable and aftermarket device interfaces. A portable
or aftermarket device's conformance with these Guidelines does not mean
that the device is safe to use while driving. It remains the driver's
responsibility to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle under all
operating conditions and to comply with all traffic laws, including
those that ban texting and/or the use of hand-held devices while
driving.
II. Scope
A. Devices and Interfaces
1. General Device and Interface Applicability. These Guidelines are
applicable to the visual-manual portions of a portable or aftermarket
device's human-machine interface. These Guidelines are applicable to
device interfaces regardless of the class or size of the vehicles in
which the portable or aftermarket devices may be used.
2. Exclusions.
These Guidelines are not applicable to:
a. The auditory-vocal portions of a portable or aftermarket
device's human-machine interface.
b. A device manufactured primarily for use in one of the following:
1. Ambulances
2. Firefighting vehicles
3. Military vehicles
4. Vehicles manufactured for use by the United States Government or a
State or local government for law enforcement, or
5. Vehicles manufactured for other emergency uses as prescribed by
regulation by the Secretary of Transportation.
c. A device or device function, control, and/or display specified
by Federal, State, or local law or regulation.
B. Tasks
1. General Task Applicability. These Guidelines are applicable to
the same types of tasks covered by the Phase 1 Guidelines, including
all non-driving-related tasks and some driving-related tasks. Table 1
contains a non-exhaustive list of the types of non-driving-related
tasks to which these Guidelines are applicable.
Table 1--Non-Driving-Related Tasks/Devices To Which These Guidelines
Apply
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of task Task/device
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communications.............. Caller Identification, Incoming Call
Management, Initiating and Terminating
Phone Calls, Conference Phoning, Two-Way
Radio Communications, Paging, Address
Book, Reminders, Text-Based
Communications, Social Media Messaging or
Posting.
Entertainment............... Radio (including but not limited to AM,
FM, Internet, and Satellite), Pre-
recorded Music Players, All Formats,
Television, Video Displays, Advertising,
Internet Browsing, News, Directory
Services.
Information................. Display and other information settings and
preferences.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These Guidelines are also applicable to driving-related tasks that
are neither related to the safe operation and control of the vehicle
nor involve the use of a system required by law. Examples of driving-
related tasks to which these Guidelines are applicable include:
1. Driver Information functions
2. Route navigation functions.
2. Exclusions. These Guidelines are not applicable to the driving-
related tasks that are performed by the driver as part of the safe
operation and control of the vehicle, including any task relating to
the proper use of a driver safety warning system (e.g., lane departure
warning and forward collision warning systems). These include
applications for portable and aftermarket devices that assist the
driver in the mitigation and avoidance of crashes.
III. Definitions
A. Definitions From the Phase 1 Guidelines
The following terms are defined in the Phase 1 Guidelines, and have
the same meaning in these Guidelines:
1. Device means all components that a driver uses to perform
secondary tasks (i.e., tasks other than the primary task of safe
operation and control of the vehicle); whether stand-alone or
integrated into another device.
2. Distraction means the diversion of a driver's attention from
activities critical for safe operation and control of a vehicle to a
competing activity.
3. Driving means whenever the vehicle's means of propulsion (engine
and/or motor) is activated unless one of the following conditions is
met:
a. For a vehicle equipped with a transmission with a ``Park''
position--The vehicle's transmission is in the ``Park'' position.
b. For a vehicle equipped with a transmission without a ``Park''
position--All three of the following conditions are met:
i. The vehicle's parking brake is engaged, and
ii. 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
iii. The vehicle's speed is less than 5 mph.
4. Function means an individual purpose which the device is
designed to fulfill. A device may have one or more functions.
[[Page 87681]]
5. Interaction means an input by a driver to a device, either at
the driver's initiative or as a response to displayed information.
Interactions include control inputs and data inputs (information that a
driver sends or receives from the device that is not intended to
control the device). Depending on the type of task and the goal,
interactions may be elementary or more complex. For the visual-manual
interfaces covered by this version of these Guidelines, interactions
are restricted to physical (manual or visual) actions.
6. Lock Out means the disabling of one or more functions or
features of a device so that the related task cannot be performed by
the driver while driving.
7. Manual Text Entry means manually inputting individual
alphanumeric characters into an electronic device. For the purposes of
these Guidelines, digit-based phone dialing is not considered manual
text entry.
B. Additional Definitions
1. Aftermarket Device means a Device that is designed to be or can
reasonably be expected to be installed or integrated into a vehicle
after the vehicle is manufactured, is electrically powered, and has one
or more of the following capabilities:
a. Allows user interaction;
b. Enters, sends, and/or receives information;
c. Enables communication with other people, devices, or machines;
d. Displays information in a visual and/or auditory manner; or
e. Displays graphical images, photographic images, and/or video.
2. Application, or App, means a specialized software program that
is installed on an OEM, portable or aftermarket device.
3. Driver Mode means a simplified user interface for an unpaired
portable device that is designed for operation by a driver while
driving.
4. Driver safety warning system means a system or application that
is intended to assist the driver in the avoidance or mitigation of
crashes.
5. Human-Machine Interface (HMI) means the input and output
mechanisms that mediate the interactivity between an electronic system
and human operator. User Interface (UI) is another commonly used term
for HMI.
6. In-Vehicle System means an OEM or aftermarket system that is
permanently installed.
7. PAD means a portable or aftermarket device.
8. Paired means integrated, connected, or coupled to an in-vehicle
system's visual display, audio system, and/or controls through either
wired or wireless connection methods so that the in-vehicle system has
control over the portable device's prioritization, manipulation, and
the presentation of information that originates from both local and/or
off-board sources.
9. Portable Device means a device that can reasonably be expected
to be brought into a vehicle on a trip-by-trip basis and to be used by
a driver while driving, that is electrically powered, and that has one
or more of the following capabilities:
a. Allows user interaction
b. Enters, sends, and/or receives information
c. Displays information in a visual and/or auditory manner, or
d. Displays graphical images, photographic images, and/or video
IV. Device Interface Recommendations
A. Overview of Device Interface Recommendations
Figure 2 below is a flow diagram that summarizes the overall
recommendations for both portable and aftermarket devices. For the
Driver Mode recommendation, the diagram depicts the preferred automatic
activation with the recognition that driver distinction technology is
not currently available in a product-level state. When the distinction
technology matures to an implementable state, NHTSA strongly recommends
that it be applied to managing the interaction of unpaired portable
devices. Manual activation of Driver Mode by the driver, also depicted
in Figure 2, is NHTSA's temporary recommendation until the preferred
automatic activation configuration is available. For the remainder of
this section, the recommendations for aftermarket and portable devices
are presented separately.
[[Page 87682]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05DE16.003
B. Aftermarket Devices
Installed aftermarket devices should meet the requirements as
specified for OE interfaces in the Phase 1 Guidelines.
C. Portable Devices Should Be Paired
1. Ease of Pairing
Vehicle manufacturers and portable device manufacturers should
provide the necessary mechanisms to enable pairing between the portable
device and in-vehicle system. Pairing should be an easy-to-understand
task that allows the driver to set up their portable device with their
in-vehicle system with the fewest number of steps possible.
2. Disablement of Pairing Process
If the initial or subsequent pairing process between the portable
device and in-vehicle system requires visual-manual interaction by the
driver, the initial process of pairing should be disabled while
driving.
3. Portable Device Interface Lock Outs While Paired
Portable device control input means should be locked out when the
portable device is paired to the in-vehicle system and Driver mode on
the device is activated. The functions and applications on the portable
device should be operable exclusively through the in-vehicle system's
interface with the exception of accessing emergency services and
messages.
4. Emergency Services, Alerts, and Notifications
In the event that emergency services are required, access through
the locked out paired portable device interface should be quick and
easily accessible for the driver. Along with access to emergency
services, the receiving of emergency notifications and alerts as text
messages should be allowable for display on the paired portable device
interface. All emergency messaging and alert services should follow the
standard protocol as specified by the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA)
system which is managed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
D. Portable Devices Should Incorporate Driver Mode for Unpaired Use
1. Driver Mode
Portable devices should have a Driver Mode that consists of a
simplified interface that is available to the driver when the device is
unpaired, either because the in-vehicle system and/or portable device
does not possess the capability for pairing or because the driver
chooses not to pair with the in-vehicle system. However, a portable
device designed primarily for use while driving and whose native
interface design conforms to the Phase 1 Guidelines recommendations can
be considered to essentially always be in driver mode and therefore
would not warrant a separate mode for use while driving.
The Driver Mode interface should conform to the Phase 1 Guidelines
for electronic devices used by the driver while driving. Specifically,
while in Driver Mode, the portable device should adhere to the per se
lock out tasks listed in sections V.F.1 through V.F.6 of the Phase 1
Guidelines.
[[Page 87683]]
1. Device functions and tasks not intended to be used by a driver while
driving
2. Manual text entry
3. Displaying video
4. Displaying images
5. Automatically scrolling text
6. Displaying text to be read
Driver Mode should also lock out any non-driving-related task or
driving-related task that does not conform to one of the task
acceptance methods in Section VI of these Guidelines. The portable
device should also conform to the following subsections of the Phase 1
Guidelines Section V:
A. No Obstruction of View
B. Easy to See and Reach
F. Per Se Lock Outs (listed in previous paragraph)
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
2. Emergency Services, Alerts, and Notifications
In the event that emergency services are required, access through
the portable device Driver Mode interface should be quick and easily
accessible for the user. Along with access to emergency services, the
receiving of emergency notifications and alerts as text messages should
be allowable for display on the Driver Mode interface. All emergency
messaging and alert services shall follow the standard protocol as
specified by the WEA system which is managed by the FCC and the FEMA.
3. Driver Mode Activation
a. Option 1--Automatic Activation. Driver mode automatically
activates within a reasonable period of time when the portable device:
(1) Is not paired with the in-vehicle system, and (2) by itself, or in
conjunction with the vehicle in which it is being used, distinguishes
that it is being used by a driver who is driving. The driver mode does
not activate when the device is being used by a non-driver.
i. Development of technologies that can distinguish between a
device being used by a driver and a device being used by a passenger
and appropriately alter, limit, or eliminate their visual-manual
interfaces when used by a driver is encouraged. In the case in which
Driver Mode is automatically activated in a moving vehicle, the
technology should be able to distinguish the driver-operated devices
from the passenger-operated devices to a high-degree of accuracy and
reliability; and be executed in a prompt manner relative to the
starting motion of the driver's vehicle.
b. Option 2--Driver Activation. Driver Mode is activated by the
driver before driving. If this option is used, Driver Mode should be
easily accessible via the portable device's software or hardware user
interface, enabling the driver to engage Driver Mode quickly and with
the fewest number of steps possible.
4. Unpaired Portable Device Location
A specific location for an unpaired portable device (e.g., mounting
location) is not specified in these guidelines. The test location
described in the Task Acceptance Testing section is for testing
purposes only and not considered a recommendation for device placement.
V. Task Acceptance Testing
Task acceptance testing for portable devices should use the same
test methods as those described in the Phase 1 Guidelines Section VI.
The specific procedures for Eye Glance Measurement Using Driving
Simulator Testing and Occlusion Testing are incorporated by reference,
as detailed in the following subsections of the Phase 1 Guidelines
Section VI:
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. Text Performance Errors During Testing.
The Acceptance Criteria detailed in the Phase 1 Guidelines for both
the Simulator (Section VI.E.14) and Occlusion (Section VI.G.17) test
methods are also applicable for testing portable devices.
A. Additional Test Procedures for Portable and Aftermarket Devices
1. Permanently Installed Aftermarket Devices. Devices that are
intended to be permanently installed in the vehicle should be tested in
the location prescribed by the device manufacturer, and according to
the test procedures noted above. Such prescribed installation locations
should conform to the guidelines specified in the following subsections
from Phase 1 Guidelines Section V:
A. No Obstruction of View.
B. Easy to See and Reach.
C. Maximum Display Downward Angle.
D. Lateral Position of Visual Displays.
2. Paired Devices: Testing procedures assume the portable device is
already paired to the vehicle system, as defined in Section III.
Because the testing of the paired portable device will use the built-in
display and controls system, the location of the paired portable device
itself is not specified.
3. Unpaired Devices: Unpaired portable devices should only be
tested in a mounted location using tasks that are accessed through the
Driver Mode interface. NHTSA recognizes that there are substantial
variations in portable device mounting hardware options and vehicle
interior designs that are available to drivers. As such, unpaired
portable devices should be mounted within a vehicle to the greatest
extent possible to the following recommendations:
a. The mount location should conform to the recommendations
specified in the Phase 1 Guidelines Section V.A through Section V.D
noted above.
b. The mounting location should not result in the portable device
interfering with airbag deployment zones or safe operation of the
vehicle controls (e.g., steering wheel, gear shifter, etc.).
VI. Driver Distraction Guidelines Interpretation Letters
NHTSA intends to clarify the meaning of its Driver Distraction
Guidelines in response to questions posed through the issuance of
interpretation letters.
A. Guideline Interpretation Letter Procedure
1. Guidelines interpretation letters will only be issued in
response to specific written requests for interpretation of the NHTSA
Guidelines.
2. Requests for Guidelines interpretation letters may be submitted
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The mailing
address is: Chief Counsel, NCC-200, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.
3. Responses will be mailed to requestors, published in the docket,
and posted in a designated area on the NHTSA Web site.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 21, 2016 under authority
delegated by 49 CFR 1.95.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2016-29051 Filed 12-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
