Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for Portable and Aftermarket Devices, 87656-87683 [2016-29051]

Download as PDF 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 http://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 http://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 http:// 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 http://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 http://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: http:// 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 http://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: http://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 http://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 http://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 http:// 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 http://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 http://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: http:// 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 http://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 http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/02/apple- carplay-comes-to-pioneer-stereos-as-spotify-addssupport/ (last accessed on 10/4/16). http:// 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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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: http://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 http://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: http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 
http://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 
http://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: http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/symposiums/may2015/index.html (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 
http://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\ http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/02/apple-carplay-comes-to-pioneer-stereos-as-spotify-adds-support/ (last accessed on 10/4/16). 
http://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 http://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 
http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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