[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87656-87683]
[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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments

received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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\

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:

     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

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

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

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.

                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

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.

    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

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.

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

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

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

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

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).

  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.

[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