[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 81 (Friday, April 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24817-24890]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09883]

Vol. 78

Friday,

No. 81

April 26, 2013

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

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

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0053]

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

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Federal guidelines.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is
concerned about the effects of distraction on motor vehicle safety due
to drivers' use of electronic devices. Consequently, NHTSA is issuing
nonbinding, voluntary Driver Distraction Guidelines (NHTSA Guidelines)
to promote safety by discouraging the introduction of excessively
distracting devices in vehicles.
    This notice announces the issuance of the final version of the
first phase of the NHTSA Guidelines. This first phase applies to
original equipment (OE) in-vehicle electronic devices used by the
driver to perform secondary tasks (communications, entertainment,
information gathering, navigation tasks, etc. are considered secondary
tasks) through visual-manual means (i.e., the driver looks at a device,
manipulates a device-related control with his or her hand, and/or
watches for visual feedback).
    The NHTSA Guidelines list certain secondary tasks believed by the
agency to interfere inherently with a driver's ability to safely
control the vehicle. The NHTSA Guidelines recommend that in-vehicle
devices be designed so that they cannot be used by the driver to
perform these inherently distracting secondary tasks while driving. For
all other visual-manual secondary tasks, the NHTSA Guidelines specify a
test method for measuring eye glance behavior during those tasks. Eye
glance metrics are compared to acceptance criteria to evaluate whether
a task interferes too much with driver attention, rendering it
unsuitable for a driver to perform while driving. If a task does not
meet the acceptance criteria, the NHTSA Guidelines recommend that the
task be made inaccessible for performance by the driver while driving.
In addition, the NHTSA Guidelines contain several recommendations to
limit and reduce the potential for distraction associated with the use
of OE in-vehicle electronic devices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Dr. W. Riley Garrott, Vehicle Research and Test Center, phone: (937)
666-3312, facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Dr. Garrott's mailing address is:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Vehicle Research and
Test Center, P.O. Box B-37, East Liberty, OH 43319.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final version of the first phase of the
NHTSA Guidelines does not have the force and effect of law and is not a
regulation. These Guidelines will not be published in the Code of
Federal Regulations but will be posted on NHTSA's Web site,
www.nhtsa.gov, and on DOT's distracted driving Web site
Distraction.gov.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. The Problem of Driver Distraction and Related Research
    B. NHTSA's Driver Distraction Program
    C. The Visual-Manual NHTSA Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic
Devices
    D. Major Differences Between the Proposed and Final Phase 1
NHTSA Guidelines
II. Background
    A. Acronyms Used in Document
    B. The Driver Distraction Safety Problem
    1. Estimation of Distraction Crash Risk Via Naturalistic Driving
Studies
    2. Summary of Naturalistic Driving Study Distraction Risk
Analyses
    C. NHTSA's Comprehensive Response to Driver Distraction
III. The February 2012 Proposed NHTSA Guidelines and Comments
    A. The Initial Notice Proposing the NHTSA Guidelines
    B. Summary of Comments on the Proposed NHTSA Guidelines
IV. Analysis of Proposal Comments by Issues
    A. General Issues
    1. NHTSA Should Issue a FMVSS Instead of Guidelines
    2. The Alliance Guidelines Adequately Address Distraction
    3. Suggestions To Wait for Better Data or Additional Research To
Be Completed
    4. Suggestions for Using Voluntary Consensus Standards as a
Basis for Developing NHTSA's Guidelines
    5. Publish NHTSA's Driver Distraction Guidelines to Portable and
Aftermarket Devices as Soon as Possible
    6. Develop NHTSA's Guidelines To Address Cognitive Distraction
and Voice Interfaces as Soon as Possible
    7. NHTSA's Intentions for Future Updating of Its Guidelines
    8. Reliance on Limited Amount of Research in Developing NHTSA's
Guidelines
    9. Concerns That Updating Vehicle Models To Meet the NHTSA
Guidelines Will Be Expensive
    10. Concerns About the NHTSA Guidelines Preventing ``911''
Emergency Calls
    11. Concerns About the NHTSA Guidelines Preventing Passenger Use
of Electronic Devices
    12. Daytime Running Lights Are Major Cause of Driver Distraction
    B. Issues Specific to the NHTSA Guidelines Stated Purpose
    1. Concern That Failure To Meet the NHTSA Guidelines Could
Result in Enforcement Action
    2. NHTSA's Monitoring of Vehicles' Conformance to Its Guidelines
    3. Do automakers have to perform testing as described in the
NHTSA guidelines?
    4. Lead Time for the NHTSA Guidelines
    C. Issues Relating to the NHTSA Guidelines Scope
    1. Inclusion of Conventional Electronic Devices and Heating,
Ventilation, and Air Conditioning in Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines
    2. Confusion About Limiting Scope of NHTSA Guidelines to Non-
Driving Activities
    3. Suggestions To Expand Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines To Cover
Medium and Heavy Trucks and Buses
    4. Request That Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines Exclude Emergency
Response Vehicles
    5. Request That Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines Not Include
Displays Required by Other Government Bodies
    D. Definition of Driving and Lock Out Conditions
    1. For Automatic Transmission Vehicles--In Park Versus At or
Above 5 mph
    2. Definition of Driving for Manual Transmission Vehicles
    E. Per Se Lock Out Issues
    1. The NHTSA Guidelines Should Not Recommend Per Se Lock Outs of
Devices, Functions, and/or Tasks
    2. Per Se Lock Out Relating to Displaying Text To Be Read
    3. Per Se Lock Out of Manual Text Entry
    4. Per Se Lock Out of Graphical and Photographic Images
    5. Per Se Lock Out of Displaying Video Images--Dynamic Maps
    6. Per Se Lock Out of Watching Video--Trailer Hitching
    7. Per Se Lock Out of Automatically Scrolling Lists and Text
    8. Clarify Acceptability of Technology That Allows the Driver
and Passenger To See Different Content From Same Visual Display
    F. Task Acceptance Test Protocol Issues
    1. Suggestions for Other Acceptance Test Protocols
    2. Concerns About the Use of Radio Tuning as Reference Task
    3. NHTSA Has Not Shown That Tasks With TEORT Values Longer Than
12 Seconds Are Less Safe
    4. Suggestions for More Stringent Task Acceptance Criteria
    5. Concerns Expressed About Long Eye Glances
    6. Eye Glance Measurement Issues
    7. Occlusion Acceptance Test Criteria Issues
    8. Suggestions To Include Effects of Workload Managers in Task
Acceptance Criteria
    G. Definition of Goal, Dependent Task, and Subtask
    H. Driving Simulator Issues
    1. Driving Simulator Specifications
    2. Suggestions To Improve the Driving Scenario

    I. Test Participant Issues
    1. Test Participant Demographics
    2. Test Participant Impartiality
    3. Other Test Participant Qualifications
    4. Test Participant Instructions, Training, and Practice
    J. Device Response Time Recommendations
    K. Downward Viewing Angle Issues
    L. Miscellaneous Issues
    1. Concerns About Recommendation That Drivers Should Have One
Free Hand
    2. Concerns About Device Sound Level Control Recommendations
    3. Suggestion That the NHTSA Guidelines Should Recommend That
All Devices Can Be Disabled
V. Statutory Considerations

Guidelines for Reducing Visual-Manual Driver Distraction During
Interactions With Integrated, In-Vehicle, Electronic Devices

I. Purpose
    A. Driver Responsibilities
    B. Protection Against Unreasonable Risks to Safety
II. Scope
    A. Guidelines Intended for Human-Machine Interfaces
    B. Only Device Interfaces Covered
    C. Original Equipment Electronic Devices Covered
    D. Aftermarket and Portable Devices Not Covered
    E. Device Tasks Performed Via Auditory-Vocal Means Not Covered
    F. Intended Vehicle Types
III. Standards Included by Reference
    A. International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
Standards
    B. SAE International (SAE) Standards
IV. Definitions
    A. General Definitions
    B. Task-Related Definitions
    C. Task-Related Explanatory Material
V. Device Interface Recommendations
    A. No Obstruction of View
    B. Easy To See and Reach
    C. Maximum Display Downward Angle
    D. Lateral Position of Visual Displays
    E. Minimum Size of Displayed Textual Information
    F. Per Se Lock Outs
    G. Acceptance Test-Based Lock Out of Tasks
    H. Sound Level
    I. Single-Handed Operation
    J. Interruptibility
    K. Device Response Time
    L. Disablement
    M. Distinguish Tasks or Functions Not Intended for Use While
Driving
    N. Device Status
VI. Task Acceptance Testing
    A. Test Participant Recommendations
    B. Test Participant Training Recommendations
    C. Driving Simulator Recommendations
    D. Recommended Driving Simulator Scenario
    E. Eye Glance Measurement Using Driving Simulator Test Procedure
    F. Eye Glance Characterization
    G. Occlusion Testing
    H. Task Performance Errors During Testing
VII. Recommendations for Passenger Operated Devices
    A. Apply if Within Reach or View of Driver
    B. Not for Rear Seat Devices
VIII. Driver Distraction Guidelines Interpretation Letters
    A. Guideline Interpretation Letter Procedure

List of Figures

Figure 1: Risk Odds Ratios Determined by the 100-Car Study Analyses
and Two Study FMCSA Analyses
Figure 2: Slide Presented by Toyota at NHTSA Technical Workshop

List of Tables

Table 1--Police Reported Crashes and Crashes Involving Distraction,
2006-2010 (GES)
Table 2--Non-Driving-Related Tasks/Devices to Which These Guidelines
Apply
Table 3--Driving-Related Tasks

I. Executive Summary

A. The Problem of Driver Distraction and Related Research

    The term ``driver distraction,'' as used in these guidelines,
refers to a specific type of inattention that occurs when drivers
divert their attention away from the driving task to focus on another
activity. In general, distractions derive from a variety of sources
including electronic devices, such as navigation systems and cell
phones, as well as conventional distractions such as sights or events
external to the vehicle, interacting with passengers, and eating. These
distracting tasks can affect drivers in different ways, and can be
categorized into the following types:
     Visual distraction: Tasks that require the driver to look
away from the roadway to visually obtain information.
     Manual distraction: Tasks that require the driver to take
a hand off the steering wheel and manipulate a device.
     Cognitive distraction: Tasks that require the driver to
avert their mental attention away from the driving task.

Tasks can involve one, two, or all three of these distraction types.
    The impact of distraction on driving is determined from multiple
criteria: the type and level of distraction, the frequency and duration
of task performance, and the degree of demand associated with a task.
Even if performing a task results in a low level of distraction, a
driver who engages in it frequently, or for long durations, may
increase the crash risk to a level comparable to that of a more
difficult task performed less often.
    NHTSA is concerned about the effects of driver distraction on motor
vehicle safety. Crash data show that 17 percent (an estimated 899,000)
of all police-reported crashes involved some type of driver distraction
in 2010. Of those 899,000 crashes, distraction by a device or control
integral to the vehicle was reported in 26,000 crashes (3% of the
distraction-related police-reported crashes).
    For a number of years, NHTSA has been conducting research to better
understand how driver distraction impacts driving performance and
safety. This research has involved original equipment (OE) and portable
devices, various task types, and both visual-manual and auditory-vocal
tasks (i.e., tasks that use voice inputs and provide auditory
feedback). Additionally, both NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) have sponsored analyses focused on
distracted driving using data from naturalistic driving studies
performed by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI).
    The automobile industry and academic researchers in Europe, Japan,
and the United States have all conducted valuable research that has
increased the available knowledge regarding driver distraction and its
effects on safety. The results of this work are summarized in various
sets of guidelines that minimize the potential for driver distraction
during visual-manual interactions while driving. NHTSA has drawn
heavily upon these existing guidelines in the development of its
visual-manual Driver Distraction Guidelines for OE in-vehicle devices.

B. NHTSA's Driver Distraction Program

    In June 2012, NHTSA released a ``Blueprint for Ending Distracted
Driving'' \1\ summarizing steps that NHTSA intends to take to eliminate
crashes attributable to driver distraction. This document was an update
of the ``Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Driver Distraction Program'' \2\ which was released in
April 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving,'' DOT HS 811 629,
June 2012. Accessed at: http://www.distraction.gov/download/campaign-materials/8747-811629-060712-v5-Opt1-Web-tag.pdf.
    \2\ ``Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Driver Distraction Program,'' DOT HS 811 299, April
2010. Accessed at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/811299.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the steps called for in both of these documents is the
development of nonbinding, voluntary guidelines for minimizing the
distraction potential of in-vehicle and portable devices. These
guidelines will be developed in three phases. The first phase will
cover visual-manual interfaces of electronic devices installed in
vehicles as original equipment. The second phase will include visual-
manual interfaces of

portable and aftermarket devices. The third phase will expand these
guidelines to include auditory-vocal interfaces.

C. The Visual-Manual NHTSA Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices

    This notice announces the issuance of the Phase 1 NHTSA Driver
Distraction Guidelines. The first phase covers OE in-vehicle electronic
devices that are operated by the driver through visual-manual means
(i.e., the driver looks at a device, manipulates a device-related
control with his or her hand, and/or watches for visual feedback from
the device).
    To facilitate the development of these guidelines, NHTSA studied
the various existing guidelines relating to driver distraction
prevention and reduction and found the ``Statement of Principles,
Criteria and Verification Procedures on Driver-Interactions with
Advanced In-Vehicle Information and Communication Systems'' developed
by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance Guidelines \3\)
to be the most complete and up-to-date. The Alliance Guidelines
provided valuable input in current NHTSA efforts to address driver
distraction issues. Although NHTSA drew heavily on that input in
developing the NHTSA Guidelines, the agency identified a number of
aspects that could be improved upon in order to further enhance driving
safety, enhance guideline usability, improve implementation
consistency, and incorporate the latest driver distraction research
findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, ``Statement of
Principles, Criteria and Verification Procedures on Driver-
Interactions with Advanced In-Vehicle Information and Communication
Systems,'' June 26, 2006 version, Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA issued an Initial Notice \4\ proposing these Guidelines and
soliciting comments on them that was published on February 24, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Notice of Proposed Federal Guidelines, Visual-Manual NHTSA
Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices, 77
FR 11200 (Feb. 24, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since light vehicles comprise the vast majority of the vehicle
fleet, NHTSA focused its distraction research on this type of vehicle,
instead of heavy trucks, medium trucks, motorcoaches, or motorcycles.
Therefore, the NHTSA Guidelines are only applicable to light vehicles,
i.e., passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks and
buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of not more than 10,000
pounds. However, the NHTSA Guidelines do not cover vehicles used for
emergency purposes (e.g., law enforcement). While much of what NHTSA
has learned about light vehicle driver distraction undoubtedly applies
to vehicle types other than light vehicles, additional work would be
necessary to assess whether all aspects of the NHTSA Guidelines could
be applicable to those vehicle types.
    The NHTSA Guidelines are based upon a number of fundamental
principles. These principles include:
     The driver's eyes should usually be looking at the road
ahead,
     The driver should be able to keep at least one hand on the
steering wheel while performing a secondary task (both driving-related
and non-driving related),
     The distraction induced by any secondary task performed
while driving should not exceed that associated with a baseline
reference task (manual radio tuning),
     Any task performed by a driver should be interruptible at
any time,
     The driver, not the system/device, should control the pace
of task interactions, and
     Displays should be easy for the driver to see and content
presented should be easily discernible.
    The NHTSA Guidelines include several approaches to limit potential
driver distraction associated with visual-manual tasks.
    The NHTSA Guidelines list certain secondary tasks believed by the
agency to interfere inherently with a driver's ability to safely
control the vehicle. These include activities that are discouraged by
public policy and, in some instances, prohibited by Federal regulation
and State law (e.g., entering or displaying text messages), activities
identified in industry driver distraction guidelines which NHTSA agrees
are likely to distract drivers significantly (e.g., displaying video or
automatically scrolling text), and activities that are extremely likely
to be distracting due to their very purpose of attracting visual
attention but whose obvious potential for distraction cannot be
measured using a task timing system because the activity could continue
indefinitely (displaying video or certain images). The NHTSA Guidelines
refer to these activities as ``per se lock outs.'' The NHTSA Guidelines
recommend that in-vehicle devices be designed so that they cannot be
used by the driver to perform these inherently distracting activities
while driving. The list of activities considered to inherently
interfere with a driver's ability to safely operate the vehicle
include:
     Displaying video not related to driving;
     displaying certain graphical or photographic images;
     displaying automatically scrolling text;
     manual text entry for the purpose of text-based messaging,
other communication, or internet browsing; and
     displaying text for reading from books, periodical
publications, Web page content, social media content, text-based
advertising and marketing, or text-based messages.
    These recommendations are not intended to prevent the display of
images related to driving such as simple, two-dimensional map displays
for the purpose of navigation and images for the purpose of aiding a
driver in viewing blind areas around a vehicle, as long as they are
displayed in a safe manner. These recommendations are also not intended
to prevent the display of internationally standardized symbols and
icons, TrademarkTM and Registered[supreg] symbols (such as
company logos), or images intended to aid a driver in making a
selection in the context of a non-driving-related task, provided that
the images extinguish automatically upon completion of the task.
    For all other visual-manual secondary tasks, the NHTSA Guidelines
specify two test methods for measuring the impact of performing a task
on driving safety and time-based acceptance criteria for assessing
whether a task interferes too much with driver attention to be suitable
for performance while driving. If a task does not meet the acceptance
criteria, the NHTSA Guidelines recommend that OE in-vehicle devices be
designed so that the task cannot be performed by the driver while
driving. Both of these test methods focus on the amount of visual
attention necessary to complete a task because existing research on
visual-manual distraction establishes a link between visual attention
(eyes off the road) and crash risk.\5\ Although NHTSA considered other
distraction metrics and alternative protocols for assessing visual-
manual distraction and discussed these in the Initial Notice (e.g.,
driving performance metrics like lane keeping) none of these other
metrics has an established link to crash risk, and, accordingly, NHTSA
has not included the alternative test methods in these Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Klauer, S.G., Dingus, T.A., Neale, V.L., Sudweeks, J.D., and
Ramsey, D.J., ``The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash
Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study
Data,'' DOT HS 810 594, April 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first recommended test method measures the amount of time that
the

driver's eyes are drawn away from the roadway during the performance of
the task. The NHTSA Guidelines recommend that devices be designed so
that tasks can be completed by the driver while driving with glances
away from the roadway of 2 seconds or less and a cumulative time spent
glancing away from the roadway of 12 seconds or less. The second test
method uses a visual occlusion technique to ensure that a driver can
complete a task in a series of 1.5-second glances with a cumulative
time of not more than 12 seconds.
    In addition to identifying inherently distracting tasks and
providing a means to measure and evaluate the level of distraction
associated with other secondary tasks, the NHTSA Guidelines contain
other recommendations for in-vehicle devices designed to limit and
reduce their potential for distraction. Examples include a
recommendation that performance of visual-manual tasks should not
require the use of more than one hand, a recommendation that each
device's active display be located as close as practicable to the
driver's forward line of sight, and a recommendation of a maximum
downward viewing angle to the geometric center of each display.
    The NHTSA Guidelines cover any OE electronic device that the driver
can easily see and/or reach, even if intended for use solely by
passengers. However, the NHTSA Guidelines do not cover any device that
is located fully behind the front seat of the vehicle or any front-seat
device that cannot readily be reached or seen by the driver.
    NHTSA has opted to pursue nonbinding, voluntary guidelines rather
than a mandatory Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). NHTSA
explained in the Initial Notice that voluntary guidelines are
appropriate at this time because of the need for additional research on
distraction and its effects on driving and because of the rapid pace of
technology changes in the area of in-vehicle electronic devices. The
agency also noted concerns with the sufficiency of existing data to
estimate the benefits of an in-vehicle electronic device regulation and
that driver distraction testing involves drivers with inherent
individual differences. These individual differences present new
challenges to NHTSA in terms of developing repeatable, objective test
procedures to determine conformance. After carefully considering all of
the comments, NHTSA continues to believe that voluntary guidelines are
the appropriate action to take at this time in order to reduce the
potential for driver distraction.
    Since these voluntary NHTSA Guidelines are not a FMVSS, NHTSA's
normal enforcement procedures are not applicable. As part of its
continuing research effort on distracted driving, NHTSA does intend to
monitor manufacturers' voluntary adoption of these NHTSA Guidelines.

Major Differences Between the Proposed and Final Phase 1 NHTSA
Guidelines

    NHTSA received comments from a total of 83 entities in response to
its Initial Notice proposing Phase 1 of its Driver Distraction
Guidelines. In response to the comments received, NHTSA has made
numerous changes, both substantive and editorial, to its Guidelines.
The more substantial changes include:
     Clarification that the NHTSA Guidelines apply both to some
driving-related secondary tasks and to all non-driving-related
secondary tasks performed using an original equipment electronic system
or device.
     The NHTSA Guidelines are not applicable to any vehicle
that is manufactured primarily for one of the following uses:
ambulance, firefighting, law enforcement, military, or other emergency
uses.
     Numerous changes have been made to the recommended per se
lock outs.
    [cir] The character-based limit for manual text entry has been
replaced by a recommendation against any amount of manual text entry by
the driver for the purpose of text-based messaging, other
communication, or internet browsing.
    [cir] The character-based limit for displaying text to be read has
been replaced by a recommendation against displaying any amount of text
for reading from books, periodical publications, Web page content,
social media content, text-based advertising and marketing, or text-
based messages. The display of limited amounts of other types of text
during a testable task is acceptable with the maximum amount of text
that should be displayed during a single task determined by the task
acceptance tests.
    [cir] The statement is explicitly made that the display of dynamic
and static maps and/or location information in a two-dimensional
format, with or without perspective, for the purpose of providing
navigational information or driving directions when requested by the
driver is acceptable. However, the display of informational detail not
critical to navigation, such as photorealistic images, satellite
images, or three-dimensional images is not recommended.
    [cir] The language for the per se lock out of display of graphical
and photographic images has been revised to permit images displayed for
the purpose of aiding a driver to efficiently make a selection in the
context of a non-driving-related task if the image automatically
extinguishes from the display upon completion of the task.
    [cir] A recommendation has been added that the display of visual
images of the area directly behind a vehicle intended to aid a driver
in performing a maneuver in which the vehicle's transmission is in
reverse gear (including hitching a trailer) is acceptable, subject to
certain conditions.
     A recommendation has been added that every electronic
device not essential to the driving task or the safe operation of the
vehicle should provide a means by which the device can be turned off or
otherwise disabled.
     Task acceptance tests except for Eye Glance Measurement
Using a Driving Simulator and Occlusion Testing have been removed from
the Guidelines.
     The method for determining the maximum display downward
angle has been amended to allow any of the following versions of SAE
J941 to be used to determine the driver's eye point: SAE J941 (June
1992), SAE J941 (June 1997), SAE J941 (September 2002), SAE J941
(October 2008), or SAE J941 (March 2010).
     Several definitions have been added and numerous ones
modified to improve the clarity of the Guidelines.
     The device response time recommendation has been modified
to better match the Alliance Guidelines' recommendation.
     Numerous changes to the driving simulator recommendations
and recommended driving simulator scenario used for one of the task
acceptance test protocols were made in response to comments.
     In response to comments and NHTSA's recent research
indicating that the relationship between the total eyes off road time
(TEORT) to complete a task and the total shutter open time (TSOT) to
complete a task using the visual occlusion technique is near 1:1, the
acceptance criteria have been amended. The TSOT criterion has been
changed from 9 seconds to 12 seconds so that it is consistent with the
12-second TEORT criterion.
     The recommendations for acceptance test participant
selection criteria have been revised to reflect that participants need
only drive a minimum of 3,000 miles per year and do not

necessarily need to be comfortable communicating via text messages.
    In response to comments, NHTSA has also addressed issues raised by
commenters including:

 NHTSA intends to issue its Phase 2 Driver Distraction
Guidelines as soon as feasible. The Phase 2 Guidelines will be based on
general principles similar to those upon which these Phase 1 Guidelines
are based. These principles are:
     The driver's eyes should usually be looking at the road
ahead,
     The driver should be able to keep at least one hand on the
steering wheel,
     Any task performed by driving should be interruptible at
any time,
     The driver should control the human-machine interface and
not vice versa, and
     Displays should be easy for the driver to see.

    Until such time as the Phase 2 Guidelines are issued, the agency
recommends that developers and manufacturers of portable and
aftermarket devices consider these principles as they design and update
their products. NHTSA further encourages these developers and
manufacturers to adopt any recommendations in the Phase 1 Guidelines
that they believe are feasible and appropriate for their devices.
However, NHTSA understands that implementation of some recommendations
may require development of a means to distinguish whether the driver or
front-seat passenger is performing a task.

 NHTSA intends to issue Driver Distraction Guidelines (Phase 3)
for auditory-vocal human-machine interfaces as soon as possible after
the necessary research has been completed.
 NHTSA will also continue to collect information on driver
distraction and to conduct research, and NHTSA's Guidelines will be
updated as needed in response to new information. NHTSA will also
clarify the meaning of its Guidelines in response to questions that are
asked through the issuance of Guideline Interpretation letters and has
described the procedure for obtaining these letters.
 Since these voluntary proposed NHTSA Guidelines are not a
FMVSS, NHTSA's normal enforcement procedures are not applicable. NHTSA
Vehicle Safety Research will perform future monitoring to assess which
vehicle make/models conform to these Phase 1 Guidelines.
 NHTSA believes that it is feasible for manufacturers to make
the necessary changes to implement these Guidelines for existing
vehicle models that undergo major revisions beginning three or more
years from today's date. This three-year time frame is an increase from
the two-year time frame stated in the Initial Notice because the agency
recognizes that instrument panel and console design changes occur early
in the revision cycle and these systems may already have been designed
for vehicles undergoing revisions in two years. Likewise, NHTSA
believes it should be feasible for new vehicle models entering the
market in three or more years (again, an increase from the two or more
years stated in the Initial Notice) from today's date to meet the NHTSA
Guidelines. For existing vehicle models that do not undergo major
revisions, NHTSA is not suggesting that the recommendations of these
Guidelines would be met.

    NHTSA expects the main effect from these Guidelines to be better-
designed OE in-vehicle electronic device human-machine interfaces that
do not create an unreasonable level of driver distraction when used by
a driver to perform visual-manual secondary tasks. While voluntary and
nonbinding, the NHTSA Guidelines are meant to discourage the
introduction of both inherently distracting secondary tasks and tasks
that do not meet the acceptance criteria when tested using the test
methods contained in the Guidelines.

II. Background

A. Acronyms Used in Document

AAM Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Alliance Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
BM Benchmark
CAMP Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership
CD Compact Disc
CDS Crashworthiness Data System
CU Consumers Union
DFD Dynamic Following and Detection
DFT Driver Focus-Telematics
DRL Daytime Running Lights
DOT Department of Transportation
DS-BM Driving Test Protocol
DS-FC Driving Test Protocol with Fixed Acceptance Criteria
DVI Driver-Vehicle Interface
DWM Driver Workload Metric
EGDS Eye Glance Testing Using a Driving Simulator
EO Executive Order
EORT Eyes-Off-Road Time
FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FMCSR Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation
FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
FR Federal Register
GES General Estimates System (NASS-GES)
GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
HMI Human-Machine Interface
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
ISO International Organization for Standardization
JAMA Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association
KLM Keystroke, Level Model
LCT Lane Change Test
MAP-21 Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement Act of 2012
MEMA Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association
MGD Mean Glance Duration
mph Miles per hour
NADS National Advanced Driving Simulator
NAFA National Association of Fleet Administrators
NASS National Automotive Sampling System
NCAP New Car Assessment Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NMVCCS National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey
NSC National Safety Council
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OE Original Equipment
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
PAD Portable or Aftermarket Device
PDT Peripheral Detection Task
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SHRP2 Strategic Highway Research Program 2
SUV Sport Utility Vehicle
TEORT Total Eyes-Off-Road Time
TGT Total Glance Time to Task
TLC Time to Line Crossing
TSOT Total Shutter Open Time
VRTC Vehicle Research and Test Center
VTI Swedish National Road and Transport Institute
VTTI Virginia Tech Transportation Institute

B. The Driver Distraction Safety Problem

    The term ``driver distraction,'' as used in this notice, is a
specific type of inattention that occurs when drivers divert their
attention away from the driving task to focus on another activity.
These distractions can come from electronic devices, such as navigation
systems and cell phones, more conventional activities such as sights or
events external to the vehicle, interacting with passengers, and/or
eating. These distracting tasks can affect drivers in different ways,
and can be categorized into the following types:
     Visual distraction: Tasks that require the driver to look
away from the roadway to visually obtain information;
     Manual distraction: Tasks that require the driver to take
one or both

hands off the steering wheel to manipulate a control, device, or other
non-driving-related item;
     Cognitive distraction: Tasks that require the driver to
avert their mental attention away from the driving task.

Tasks can involve one, two, or all three of these distraction types.
    The impact of distraction on driving is determined from multiple
criteria; the type and level of distraction, the frequency and duration
of task performance, and the degree of demand associated with a task.
Even if performing a task results in a low level of distraction, a
driver who engages in it frequently, or for long durations, may
increase the crash risk to a level comparable to that of a more
difficult task performed less often.
    Hundreds of studies have been conducted on the topic of driver
distraction over the past several decades, starting as early as the
1960s. The recent edited book by Regan, Lee, and Young (2009) \6\
provides a comprehensive treatment of the range of issues relating to
distraction, including theoretical foundations, crash risk, effects on
driver performance, exposure, measurement methods, and mitigation
strategies. A sample of these papers may be found at
www.distraction.gov. NHTSA recognizes this large body of research and
the important contributions it makes to better understanding the
impacts of distraction on crash risk and driving performance. However,
because NHTSA is an agency driven first and foremost by the goal of
reducing the frequency and severity of crashes, the agency's focus has
been on research and test procedures that measure aspects of driver
performance that have the strongest connection to crash risk.
Accordingly, the research noted below provides a brief overview of the
distraction safety problem as manifested in crashes and the
relationship between distraction and crash risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D., & Young, K. (Eds.), Driver
distraction: Theory, effects, and mitigation, Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA data on distracted driving-related crashes and the resulting
numbers of injured people and fatalities is derived from the Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) \7\ and the National Automotive
Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FARS is a census of all fatal crashes that occur on the
roadways of the United States of America. It contains data on all
fatal crashes occurring in all 50 states as well as the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico.
    \8\ NASS GES contains data from a nationally-representative
sample of police-reported crashes. It contains data on police-
reported crashes of all levels of severity, including those that
result in fatalities, injuries, or only property damage. National
numbers of crashes calculated from NASS GES are estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The most recent data available, 2010 data, show that 899,000 motor
vehicle crashes involved a report of a distracted driver (17 percent of
all police-reported crashes: fatal, injury-only, and property-damage-
only). As seen in Table 1, the percentage of all police-reported
crashes that involve distraction has remained consistent over the past
five years. On average, these distraction-related crashes lead to
thousands of fatalities (3,092 fatalities or 9.4 percent of those
killed in 2010) and injuries to over 400,000 people each year
(approximately 17 percent of annual injuries).

                       Table 1--Police Reported Crashes and Crashes Involving Distraction,
                                                 2006-2010 (GES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Police-Reported    Police-Reported
                                                          Police-Reported   Crashes Involving  Crashes Involving
                                      Number of  Police- Crashes Involving     a Distracted       a Distracted
                Year                  Reported  Crashes     a Distracted     Driver Using  an   Driver Using an
                                                               Driver           Integrated     Electronic Device
                                                                             Control/Device *          *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006................................          5,964,000    1,019,000 (17%)        18,000 (2%)        24,000 (2%)
2007................................          6,016,000    1,001,000 (17%)        23,000 (2%)        48,000 (5%)
2008................................          5,801,000      967,000 (17%)        21,000 (2%)        48,000 (5%)
2009................................          5,498,000      957,000 (17%)        22,000 (2%)        46,000 (5%)
2010................................          5,409,000      899,000 (17%)        26,000 (3%)        47,000 (5%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The categories for Integrated Control/Device and Electronic Device are not mutually exclusive. Therefore the
  data cannot be added or combined in any manner.

    Of the 899,000 distraction-related crashes, 26,000 (3%)
specifically stated that the driver was distracted while adjusting or
using an integrated device/control. From a different viewpoint, of
those 899,000 crashes, 47,000 (5%) specifically stated that the driver
was distracted by a cell phone (no differentiation between portable and
integrated cell phones). It should be noted that these two
classifications are not mutually exclusive, as a driver distracted by
the integrated device/control may have also been on the phone at the
time of the crash and thus the crash may appear in both categories.
While all electronic devices are of interest, the current coding of the
crash data does not differentiate between electronic devices other than
cell phones.
    Identification of specific driver activities and behaviors that
serve as the distraction has presented challenges, both within NHTSA's
data collection and on police accident reports. Therefore, a large
portion of the crashes that are reported to involve distraction do not
have a specific behavior or activity listed; rather they specify other
distraction or distraction unknown. One could reasonably assume that
some portion of those crashes involve a portable, aftermarket, or
original equipment electronic device. This would increase the numbers
and percentages of distraction-related crashes involving integrated
controls/devices or electronic devices (columns four and five of Table
1).
1. Estimation of Distraction Crash Risk Via Naturalistic Driving
Studies
    One approach to estimating the driving risks due to various types
of distraction is naturalistic driving studies. As noted earlier,
NHTSA's focus in developing these visual-manual guidelines has been on
data and measures that most closely link to crash risk. Naturalistic
data collection is currently the best method available for determining
the crash risks associated with distracted driving because it combines
two key data sources for estimating crash risk: Crash data and direct
observation of drivers to link

actual behaviors to consequent crashes and near-crashes. No other
method can establish the direct association of distracting behaviors
while driving under real-world, non-contrived conditions and crash
risk. In naturalistic driving studies, drivers are observed in their
natural environment, and, therefore, they are free to drive where they
wish. Unlike commanded task testing (e.g., simulator and test-track
studies), in which an experimenter instructs a test participant when to
perform a task, test participants perform tasks at will in naturalistic
studies. Test participants volunteer to drive a vehicle, their own or
one provided to them, fitted with unobtrusive data recording
instrumentation to record their driving behavior. Drivers can be
observed in this manner for long periods of time, only limited by the
amount of data storage available in the data recording system and the
capacity of the researchers to handle the potentially large volumes of
data collected. Naturalistic driving research is labor intensive to
conduct. It is also lengthy in duration if crash or near-crash events
are of interest, since these events are relatively rare.
    For light vehicles, the NHTSA-sponsored 100-Car Naturalistic
Driving Study,9 10 11 12 13 performed by the Virginia Tech
Transportation Institute (VTTI), provided information about the effects
of performing various types of secondary tasks on crash/near crash
risks. Secondary tasks include communication, entertainment,
informational, passenger interaction, navigation, and reaching (e.g.,
for an object) tasks (along with many others). For the 100-Car Study,
VTTI collected naturalistic driving data for 100 vehicles from January
2003 through July 2004. Each participant's vehicle was equipped with a
data acquisition system including five small video cameras and sensors
to measure numerous vehicle state and kinematic variables at each
instant of time. The vehicles were then driven by their owners during
their normal daily activities for 12 to 13 months while data were
recorded. No special instructions were given to drivers as to when or
where to drive and no experimenter was present in the vehicle during
the driving. All of this resulted in a large data set of naturalistic
driving data that contains information on 241 drivers (100 primary
drivers who performed most of the driving and 141 secondary drivers who
drove the instrumented vehicles for shorter periods of time) driving
for almost 43,000 hours and traveling approximately 2 million miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Neale, V. L., Dingus, T. A., Klauer, S.G., Sudweeks, J., and
Goodman, M., ``An Overview of the 100-Car Naturalistic Study and
Findings,'' ESV Paper 05-0400, June 2005.
    \10\ Dingus, T. A., Klauer, S.G., Neale, V. L., Petersen, A.,
Lee, S. E., Sudweeks, J., Perez, M. A., Hankey, J., Ramsey, D.,
Gupta, S., Bucher, C., Doerzaph, Z. R., Jermeland, J., and Knipling,
R.R., ``The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II--Results of
the 100-Car Field Experiment,'' DOT HS 810 593, April 2006.
    \11\ Klauer, S.G., Dingus, T.A., Neale, V.L., Sudweeks, J.D.,
and Ramsey, D.J., ``The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/
Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study
Data,'' DOT HS 810 594, April 2006.
    \12\ Guo, F., Klauer, S.G., McGill, M.T., and Dingus, T.A.,
``Task 3--Evaluating the Relationship Between Near-Crashes and
Crashes: Can Near-Crashes Serve as a Surrogate Safety Metric for
Crashes?'' DOT HS 811 382, September 2010.
    \13\ Klauer, S.G., Guo, F., Sudweeks, J.D., and Dingus, T.A.,
``An Analysis of Driver Inattention Using a Case-Crossover Approach
On 100-Car Data: Final Report,'' DOT HS 811 334, May 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data from the 100-Car Study provides the best information currently
available about the risks associated with performing a variety of
secondary tasks while driving light vehicles (vehicles under 10,000
pounds GVWR). While this was a large, difficult, and expensive study to
perform, it was small from an epidemiological viewpoint (100 primary
drivers, 15 police-reported, and 82 total crashes, including minor
collisions). Drivers from only one small portion of the country, the
Northern Virginia-Washington, DC, metro area, were represented.
    The 100-Car Study was deliberately designed to maximize the number
of crash and near-crash events through the selection of participants
with higher than average crash or near-crash risk exposure.\14\ This
was accomplished by selecting a larger sample of drivers below the age
of 25 and by including a sample that drove more than the average number
of miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Neale, V.L., Dingus, T.A., Klauer, S.G., Sudweeks, J., and
Goodman, M., ``An Overview of the 100-Car Naturalistic Study and
Findings,'' ESV Paper 05-0400, June 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the rapid pace of technological change, some devices (e.g.,
smart phones) and secondary tasks of great current interest (e.g., text
messaging) were not addressed by 100-Car Study data because they were
not widely in use at the time.
    Subsequent to the 100-Car Study, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) sponsored an analysis of naturalistic driving
data\15\ to examine the effects of driver distraction on safety for
commercial motor vehicles (three or more axle trucks, tractors-
semitrailers (including tankers), transit buses, and motor coaches).
This analysis used data collected during two commercial motor vehicle
naturalistic driving studies. Since the data analyzed was collected
during two studies, this study will, hereinafter, be referred to as the
``Two Study FMCSA Analyses.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Olson, R.L., Hanowski, R.J., Hickman, J.S., and Bocanegra,
J., ``Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations,'' FMCSA-
RRR-09-042, September 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Two Study FMCSA Analyses combined and analyzed data from two
large-scale commercial motor vehicle naturalistic driving studies: the
Drowsy Driver Warning System Field Operational Test \16\ and the
Naturalistic Truck Driving Study.\17\ The combined database contains
naturalistic driving data for 203 commercial motor vehicle drivers, 7
trucking fleets, 16 fleet locations, and approximately 3 million miles
of continuously-collected kinematic and video data collected over a
period of three years (May 2004 through May 2007). This data set was
filtered using kinematic data thresholds, along with video review and
validation, to find safety-critical events (defined in this report as
crashes, near-crashes, crash-relevant conflicts, and unintentional lane
deviations). There were a total of 4,452 safety-critical events in the
database: 21 crashes, 197 near-crashes, 3,019 crash-relevant conflicts,
and 1,215 unintentional lane deviations. In addition, 19,888 time
segments of baseline driving data were randomly selected for analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Hanowski, R.J., Blanco, M., Nakata, A., Hickman, J.S.,
Schaudt, W.A., Fumero, M.C., Olson, R.L., Jermeland, J., Greening,
M., Holbrook, G.T., Knipling, R.R., and Madison, P., ``The Drowsy
Driver Warning System Field Operational Test, Data Collection
Methods,'' DOT HS 811 035, September 2008.
    \17\ Blanco, M., Hickman, J.S., Olson, R.L., Bocanegra, J.L.,
Hanowski, R.J., Nakata, A., Greening, M., Madison, P., Holbrook,
G.T., and Bowman, D., ``Investigating Critical Incidents, Driver
Restart Period, Sleep Quantity, and Crash Countermeasures in
Commercial Vehicle Operations Using Naturalistic Data Collection,''
in press, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One major source of differences in the results obtained from
analyses of the 100-Car Study with those obtained from the Two Study
FMCSA Analyses is the different time frames in which their data
collections were performed. The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study data
collection was from January 2003 through July 2004. The Drowsy Driver
Warning System Field Operational Test collected data from May 2004
through September 2005 and the Naturalistic Truck Driving Study
collected data from November 2005 through May 2007. Due to the rapid
changes occurring in consumer electronics, the specific types of
electronic device related distraction observed across studies, while
similar, were not identical. For example, while the Two Study FMCSA
Analyses found a high safety critical event risk due to

drivers engaging in text messaging, there was no text messaging
observed during the 100-Car Study. This is because the widespread
popularity of text messaging did not occur until after the 100-Car
Study data collection was completed.
    Other sources of differences between the results obtained from
analyses of the 100-Car Study and those obtained from the Two Study
FMCSA Analyses are that one of the heavy truck studies (the Drowsy
Driver Warning System Field Operational Test) covered sample situations
likely to produce drowsiness (e.g., long nighttime drives in uneventful
conditions). In addition, both truck studies involved work situations.
2. Summary of Naturalistic Driving Study Distraction Risk Analyses
    Figure 1 gives a graphical representation of some of the secondary
task risk odds ratios determined from the 100-Car Study and the Two
Study FMCSA Analyses. In this figure, a risk odds ratio of 1.00 (shown
as ``1'' in the figure) equates to the risks associated with typical
undistracted driving. Risk odds ratios above 1.00 indicate secondary
tasks that increase driving risks while risk odds ratios below 1.00
indicate protective effects (i.e., performing these secondary tasks
makes a crash or near-crash event less likely to occur than driving and
not performing any secondary task.) This figure provides a quick,
visual summary of the risks associated with performing a variety of
secondary tasks while driving both light and heavy vehicles.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26AP13.000

    The various naturalistic data study analyses established several
important points about driver distraction which are directly relevant
to the NHTSA Guidelines for reducing driver distraction due to device
interface design:
     Secondary task performance is common while driving. They
were observed during the majority (54%) of the randomly selected
baseline time segments analyzed during the 100-Car Study analyses. Some
secondary task performance involves the use of electronic devices;
these secondary tasks are the primary focus of this document.
     Secondary task performance while driving has a broad range
of risk odds ratios associated with different secondary tasks. The
observed risk odds ratios range from 23.2, indicating a very large
increase in crash/near-crash risk to 0.4 indicating a large protective
effect. Again, a risk ratio of 1.0 means that a secondary task has the
same risk as average driving; a risk ratio of 23.2 means that risk
associated with performance of this secondary task is increased by
2,220 percent compared to average driving. Any value less than 1.0
indicates a situation with less risk than average driving, indicating a
protective effect; a risk ratio of 0.4 means that risk associated with
performance of this secondary task is reduced by 60 percent compared to
average driving. This indicates that it may be possible to improve at
least some secondary tasks with high risk odds ratios (i.e., risky
tasks) so as to make them substantially safer to perform. The logical
place to reduce crash/near-crash risk odds ratios for these secondary
tasks is through improvements to their driver interface.
     Naturalistic driving research shows that the secondary
tasks with the highest risk odds ratios have primarily visual-manual
interactions with a relatively small cognitive component. While, every
secondary task results in some cognitive load, some tasks that

may not require a lot of thought, such as Reaching for a Moving Object,
are towards the right side of Figure 1. The secondary tasks
``Interacting with Passenger'' and ``Talking/Listening on Hands-Free
Phone'' create a low visual-manual load for the driver. Both of these
secondary tasks have risk odds ratios that are statistically
significantly less than 1.00 (at the 95 percent confidence level).
These two secondary tasks appear to have protective effects.
    Since primarily visual-manual secondary tasks have the highest risk
odds ratios, and because measurement of cognitive distraction needs
further research, the NHTSA Guidelines will initially only apply to the
visual-manual aspects of devices' driver interfaces. Phase 3 of these
NHTSA Guidelines will cover the auditory-vocal portions of device
interfaces.
     Long (greater than 2.0 seconds) glances by the driver away
from the forward road scene are correlated with increased crash/near-
crash risk. When drivers glance away from the forward roadway for
greater than 2.0 seconds out of a 6-second period, their risk of an
unsafe event substantially increases relative to the baseline.

NHTSA's Comprehensive Response to Driver Distraction

    NHTSA's safety mission is to ``save lives, prevent injuries, and
reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes.'' One focus of this
mission is to prevent road traffic crashes for which driver distraction
is a contributing factor.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In June 2012, NHTSA released a ``Blueprint for Ending Distracted
Driving.'' \19\ This is an update of the ``Overview of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Driver Distraction Program,''
\20\ which was released in April 2010. These two documents summarize
NHTSA's planned steps to ``help in its long-term goal of eliminating a
specific category of crashes--those attributable to driver
distraction.'' \21\ NHTSA's work to eliminate driver distraction-
related crashes consists of four main initiatives:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    1. Improve the understanding of the extent and nature of the
distraction problem. This includes improving the quality of data NHTSA
collects about distraction-related crashes and improving analysis
techniques.
    2. Reduce the driver workload associated with performing tasks
using original equipment, aftermarket, and portable in-vehicle
electronic devices by working to limit the visual, manual, and
cognitive demand associated with secondary tasks performed using these
devices. Better device interfaces will minimize the time and effort
involved in a driver performing a task using the device. Minimizing the
workload associated with performing secondary tasks with a device will
permit drivers to maximize the attention they focus toward the primary
task of driving.
    3. Keep drivers safe through the introduction of crash avoidance
technologies. These include the use of crash warning systems to re-
focus the attention of distracted drivers as well as vehicle-initiated
(i.e., automatic) braking and steering to prevent or mitigate
distracted driver crashes. Research 22 23 24 25 on how to
best warn distracted drivers in crash imminent situations is also
supporting this initiative. NHTSA is also performing a large amount of
research on forward collision avoidance and mitigation technologies
such as Forward Collision Warning, Collision Imminent Braking, and
Dynamic Brake Assist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Lerner, N., Jenness, J., Robinson, E., Brown, T., Baldwin,
C., and Llaneras, R., ``Crash Warning Interface Metrics: Final
Report,'' DOT HS 811 470a, August, 2011.
    \23\ Robinson, E., Lerner, N., Jenness, J., Singer, J., Huey,
R., Baldwin, C., Kidd, D., Roberts, D., and Monk, C., ``Crash
Warning Interface Metrics: Task 3 Final Report: Empirical Studies of
Effects of DVI Variability'' DOT HS 811 470b, August, 2011.
    \24\ Robinson, E., Lerner, N., Jenness, J., Singer, J., Huey,
R., Baldwin, C., Kidd, D., Roberts, D., and Monk, C., ``Crash
Warning Interface Metrics: Task 3 Report Appendices'' DOT HS 811
470c, August, 2011.
    \25\ Forkenbrock, G., Snyder, A., Heitz, M., Hoover, R.L.,
O'Harra, B., Vasko, S., and Smith, L., ``A Test Track Protocol for
Assessing Forward Collision Warning Driver-Vehicle Interface
Effectiveness,'' DOT HS 811 501, July 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Educate drivers about the risks and consequences of distracted
driving. This includes targeted media messages, drafting and publishing
sample text-messaging laws for consideration and possible use by the
states, and publishing guidance for a ban on text messaging by Federal
government employees while driving.
    This notice is part of NHTSA's effort to address the second of
these initiatives, reducing driver workload by working to limit the
visual and manual demand associated with in-vehicle electronic device
interface designs. As discussed in NHTSA's Driver Distraction Program,
NHTSA's intent is to ``develop voluntary guidelines for minimizing the
distraction potential of in-vehicle and portable devices.'' \26\ The
current notice contains voluntary NHTSA Guidelines only for OE in-
vehicle electronic devices; portable and aftermarket electronic devices
will be addressed by Phase 2 of the NHTSA Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ ``Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Driver Distraction Program,'' DOT HS 811 299, April
2010. Available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/811299.pdf, P. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Drivers perform primary tasks to directly control the vehicle
(e.g., turning the steering wheel, pressing on the accelerator and
throttle pedal, and others). Primary tasks include all vehicle control
tasks necessary for safe driving.
    Drivers may also perform secondary tasks. Secondary tasks are
performed for purposes other than direct control of the vehicle (e.g.,
communications, entertainment, informational, and navigation tasks
among others).
    Drivers may perform secondary tasks using an in-vehicle electronic
device. If they do, they interact with the electronic device through
its driver interface. These interfaces can be designed to accommodate
interactions that are visual-manual (visual display and manual
controls), auditory-vocal, or a combination of the two. Some devices
may allow a driver to perform a task through either manual control
manipulation with visual feedback, or through voice command with
auditory feedback to the driver.
    For the purposes of this document, a driver's interactions with
device interfaces are described by two functional categories based on
the mode of interaction: visual-manual and auditory-vocal. Visual-
manual interactions involve the driver looking at a device, making
inputs to the device by hand (e.g., pressing a button, rotating a
knob), and/or the device providing visual feedback being provided to
the driver. Auditory-vocal interactions involve the driver controlling
the device functions through voice commands and receiving auditory
feedback from the device. A single interface may accommodate both
visual-manual and auditory-vocal interactions.
    These voluntary NHTSA Guidelines apply to in-vehicle OE electronic
device tasks performed by the driver through visual-manual means. The
goal of these Guidelines is to discourage the implementation of tasks
performed using in-vehicle electronic devices

unless the tasks and driver interfaces are designed to minimize driver
workload when performing the tasks while driving. These Guidelines
specify criteria and acceptance test protocols for assessing whether a
secondary task performed using an in-vehicle electronic device may be
suitable for performance while driving, due to its minimal impact on
driving performance and, therefore, safety. These Guidelines also
identify secondary tasks that interfere with a driver's ability to
safely control the vehicle and to categorize those tasks as being
unsuitable for performance by the driver while driving.

III. The February 2012 Proposed NHTSA Guidelines and Comments

A. The Initial Notice Proposing the NHTSA Guidelines

    On February 24, 2012, NHTSA published in the Federal Register \27\
an Initial Notice proposing the first phase of its voluntary Driver
Distraction Guidelines. The first phase covers electronic devices
installed in vehicles as original equipment (OE) that are operated by
the driver through visual-manual means (i.e., the driver looks at a
device, manipulates a device-related control with his or her hand, and/
or watches for visual feedback). Because the driver distraction crash
statistics discussed above showed that the types of secondary tasks
correlated with the highest crash/near crash risk odds ratios primarily
had visual-manual means of interaction, this first phase of guidelines
focuses on visual-manual interfaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ ``Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-
Vehicle Electronic Devices, Notice of Proposed Federal Guidelines.''
77 FR 11200 (February 24, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The goal of the Phase 1 NHTSA Guidelines is to limit potential
driver distraction associated with secondary visual-manual tasks (e.g.,
information, navigation, communications, and entertainment) performed
using OE electronic devices. In drafting the proposed NHTSA Guidelines,
the agency excluded primary driving controls and displays (e.g.,
instrument gauges, or telltales) from the scope of the proposed NHTSA
Guidelines because operating these systems is part of the primary
driving task. However, NHTSA does believe that controls and displays
for primary driving tasks should be designed for efficient performance
of tasks and to minimize distraction. Likewise, the agency excluded
collision warning or vehicle control systems designed to aid the driver
in controlling the vehicle and avoiding crashes. These systems are
meant to capture the driver's attention. Finally, the agency excluded
heating-ventilation-air conditioning (HVAC) adjustment tasks performed
through dedicated HVAC controls from the scope of the proposed NHTSA
Guidelines, but notes that efficient design of such controls and
displays is recommended to minimize distraction.
    In developing its proposed guidelines, NHTSA studied various
existing guidelines relating to driver distraction prevention and
reduction and found the ``Statement of Principles, Criteria and
Verification Procedures on Driver-Interactions with Advanced In-Vehicle
Information and Communication Systems'' developed by the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance Guidelines \28\) to be the most
complete and up-to-date. The Alliance Guidelines provided valuable
input in current NHTSA efforts to address driver distraction issues.
While NHTSA drew heavily on that input in developing the proposed NHTSA
Guidelines, it incorporated a number of changes to further enhance
driving safety, enhance guideline usability, improve implementation
consistency, and incorporate the latest driver distraction research
findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, ``Statement of
Principles, Criteria and Verification Procedures on Driver-
Interactions with Advanced In-Vehicle Information and Communication
Systems,'' June 26, 2006 version, Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA focused its distraction research on light vehicles because
they comprise the vast majority of the vehicle fleet, instead of heavy
trucks, medium trucks, motorcoaches, or motorcycles. On this basis, the
agency proposed to limit the NHTSA Guidelines to light vehicles, i.e.,
all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks and
buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of not more than 10,000
pounds. While much of what NHTSA has learned about light vehicle driver
distraction may apply to other vehicle types, additional research is
necessary to assess whether all aspects of the NHTSA Guidelines apply
to those vehicle types.
    The proposed NHTSA Guidelines were based upon a limited number of
fundamental principles. These principles include:
     The driver's eyes should usually be looking at the road
ahead,
     The driver should be able to keep at least one hand on the
steering wheel while performing a secondary task (both driving-related
and non-driving related),
     The distraction induced by any secondary task performed
while driving should not exceed that associated with a baseline
reference task (manual radio tuning),
     Any task performed by a driver should be interruptible at
any time,
     The driver should control the pace of task interactions,
not the system/device, and
     Displays should be easy for the driver to see and content
presented should be easily discernible.
    The proposed NHTSA Guidelines listed certain secondary tasks
believed by the agency to interfere inherently with a driver's ability
to safely control the vehicle. The proposed NHTSA Guidelines referred
to these as tasks as ``per se lock outs.'' The proposed NHTSA
Guidelines recommended that in-vehicle devices be designed so that they
could not be used by the driver to perform such tasks while driving.
The list of tasks considered to inherently interfere with a driver's
ability to safely operate the vehicle included: displaying images or
video not related to driving; displaying automatically scrolling text;
manual text entry of more than six button or key presses during a
single task; or reading more than 30 characters of text (not counting
punctuation marks) during a single task. The proposed NHTSA Guidelines
specified that these recommendations were intended to prevent the
driver from engaging in tasks such as watching video footage, visual-
manual text messaging, visual-manual internet browsing, or visual-
manual social media browsing while driving. These recommendations were
not intended to prevent the safe display of images related to driving,
such as images depicting the blind area behind a vehicle.
    For all other secondary visual-manual tasks, the proposed NHTSA
Guidelines recommended multiple task acceptance test methods that could
be used for measuring the impact of performing a task on driving
safety. Acceptance criteria were proposed to assess whether a task
interferes too much with driver attention to be suitable for
performance while driving. If a task does not meet the acceptance
criteria, the proposed NHTSA Guidelines recommended that OE in-vehicle
devices be designed so that the task could not be performed by the
driver while driving.
    The proposed Guidelines included two test methods preferred by
NHTSA for use in assessing whether a task interferes too much with
driver attention. One method measured the amount of time that the
driver's eyes are drawn away from the roadway during the performance of
the task. Research shows that the driver looking away from the roadway
is correlated with an increased risk of a crash or near-crash.

The proposed NHTSA Guidelines recommended that devices be designed so
that tasks could be completed by the driver while driving with: A mean
eye glance duration away from the roadway of 2 seconds or less; 85
percent of eye glance durations away from the roadway being 2 seconds
or less; and a cumulative time spent glancing away from the roadway of
12 seconds or less. The second proposed test method used a visual
occlusion technique to ensure that a driver could complete a task in a
series of 1.5-second glances with a cumulative time spent glancing away
from the roadway of not more than 9 seconds.
    In addition to identifying substantially distracting tasks and
providing a means for measuring and evaluating the level of distraction
associated with other visual-manual secondary tasks, the proposed NHTSA
Guidelines contained other interface recommendations for in-vehicle
electronic devices to minimize their potential for distraction. For
example, the proposed NHTSA Guidelines recommended that all device
functions designed to be performed by the driver through visual-manual
means should require no more than one of the driver's hands to operate.
Another example was the recommendation that each device's active
display should be located as close as practicable to the driver's
forward line of sight and included a specific recommendation for the
maximum downward viewing angle to the geometric center of each display.
    The agency proposed that the NHTSA Guidelines would cover any OE
electronic device that the driver could easily see and/or reach (even
if intended for use solely by passengers). However, the agency proposed
to limit the applicability of the NHTSA Guidelines by excluding any
device located fully behind the front seat of the vehicle or any front-
seat device that cannot reasonably be reached or seen by the driver.
    NHTSA stated in the Initial Notice that it had opted to pursue
nonbinding, voluntary guidelines rather than a mandatory Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). NHTSA explained that voluntary
guidelines are appropriate at this time because additional research is
needed on distraction and its effect on driving and because of the
rapid pace of technology changes in the area of in-vehicle electronic
devices. The agency also noted concerns with the sufficiency of
existing data to estimate the benefits of an in-vehicle electronic
device regulation and that driver distraction testing involves drivers
with inherent individual differences. These individual differences
present new challenges to NHTSA in terms of developing repeatable,
objective test procedures to determine conformance.
    In the Initial Notice, NHTSA sought comment on how to revise the
proposed NHTSA Guidelines to improve motor vehicle safety. Because
these Guidelines are voluntary and nonbinding, they will not require
action of any kind, and for that reason they will not confer benefits
or impose costs. Nonetheless, and as part of its continuing research
efforts, NHTSA sought comments on the potential benefits and costs that
would result from voluntary conformance with the draft Guidelines.
    Much of the remainder of this notice analyzes and responds to
comments that NHTSA received on the Initial Notice. The following
subsection gives an overall summary of the comments that were received.
The next section of this notice contains a detailed, issue-by-issue
analysis and response to the comments on the Initial Notice.

Summary of Comments on the Proposed NHTSA Guidelines

    NHTSA received comments from a total of 83 entities in response to
its Initial Notice proposing Phase 1 of its Driver Distraction
Guidelines. These comments came from government entities, industry
associations, automotive and equipment manufacturers, consumer and
safety advocacy organizations, university and research organizations,
and individuals. A number of entities submitted more than one set of
comments.
    Government entities providing comments were:
     The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and
     The Texas Department of Transportation.
    Industry associations submitting comments were:
     The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance),
     American Insurance Association,
     Connected Vehicle Trade Association,
     The German Association of the Automotive Industry,
     Global Automakers, and
     The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA).
    Vehicle manufacturers submitting comments were:
     American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
     BMW of North America, LLC,
     Chrysler Group LLC,
     Ford Motor Company,
     General Motors LLC (GM),
     Hyundai Motor Group,
     Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
     Nissan North America, Inc.,
     Toyota Motor North America, Inc.,
     Volkswagen Group of America,
     Volvo Car Corporation, and
     Volvo Group.
    Aftermarket product manufacturers were:
     Applikompt Applied Computer Technologies Inc.,
     Agero, Inc.,
     Garmin International, Inc.,
     Global Mobile Alert Corporation,
     Gracenote,
     Lindsey Research Services,
     Monotype Imaging Inc.,
     Nuance Communications, and
     Realtime Technologies, Inc.
    Organizations submitting comments were:
     The AAA,
     Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety,
     Center for Auto Safety,
     Consumers Union,
     Distracted Driving Safety Alliance,
     Focus Driven Advocates for Cell Free Driving,
     Highway Safety and Technology,
     Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS),
     The International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
     The NAFA Fleet Management Association, and
     The National Safety Council.
    University or Research Organizations commenting were:
     The Institute of Ergonomics (Germany),
     The National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) of the
University of Iowa,
     The Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute
(VTI), and
     Wayne State University.
    In addition, 39 individuals commented on the proposed Guidelines.
    Comments were grouped into the 12 general areas listed below. The
comments for nine general areas were further subdivided into individual
issues. This resulted in a total of the following 51 individual issues:
     General Issues
    [cir] NHTSA Should Issue a FMVSS Instead of Guidelines
    [cir] The Alliance Guidelines Adequately Address Distraction
    [cir] Suggestions to Wait for Better Data or Additional Research to
be Completed
    [cir] Suggestions for Using Voluntary Consensus Standards as a
Basis for Developing NHTSA's Guidelines
    [cir] NHTSA Should Publish the Phase 2 Guidelines Applicable to
Portable and Aftermarket Devices as Soon as Possible
    [cir] NHTSA Should Develop the Phase 3 Guidelines to Address
Cognitive Distraction and Voice Interfaces as Soon as Possible

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

IV. Analysis of Proposal Comments by Issues

A. General Issues

1. NHTSA Should Issue a FMVSS Instead of Guidelines
a. Summary of Comments
    Numerous comments focused on NHTSA's decision to promulgate
voluntary guidelines rather than a regulation or to take no action at
all. Voluntary guidelines were supported by motor vehicle manufacturers
and suppliers; regulations were supported by safety advocacy groups;
and the preference for no action was supported by multiple individuals.
    Support for promulgating voluntary guidelines was indicated by the
majority of commenters. The following quote from the Motor & Equipment
Manufacturers Association (MEMA) comments illustrates the position of
those supporting voluntary guidelines:

    MEMA agrees with the NHTSA approach to propose non-binding,
voluntary guidelines--as opposed to regulations--because of the
expedited technology growth in this sector as well as the need and
desire for more research and data.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Comments received from the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers
Association, pp. 1-2. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0091.

    Support for promulgating a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) on driver distraction was indicated by: Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety (Advocates), Center for Auto Safety, and Focus Driven
Advocates for Cell Free Driving.
    Detailed comments responding to points made by NHTSA rationalizing
the appropriateness of voluntary guidelines were submitted by
Advocates. In response to NHTSA's point that this is an area in which
learning continues, and at this time, continued research is both
necessary and important, Advocates said:

    Advocates concurs that continued research and learning is always
necessary with any regulation and new technology, both prior to and
after implementation, to ensure that the regulation meets the needs
of the motoring public and safety. However, convincing and
compelling research has already been conducted on the subject of
distracted driving. The research, cited in this and other related
notices regarding distractions due to electronic devices in motor
vehicles, shows that distracted driving has an increased association
with visual distractions that divert driver vision from the road,
manual distractions that reduce the physical ability of drivers to
control the vehicle, and cognitive distractions that reduce
attention and mental focus to the driving task.\30\ By their very
nature these types of distractions interfere with or reduce the
ability of the driver to operate a vehicle safely and warrant
regulation.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Final Rule,
Limiting the Use of Wireless Communication Devices, 75 FR 59118,
59120-121 (Sept. 27, 2010) (``In work involving equipment such as
vehicles, one distraction classification system includes three
categories: visual (taking one's eyes off the road), physical
(taking one's hands off the wheel), and cognitive (thinking about
something other than the road/driving).)''
    \31\ Comments received from the Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, p. 6. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-
0053, Document Number 0069.

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

    In response to NHTSA's point that technology is changing rapidly
and a static rule put in place at this time may face unforeseen
problems and issues as new technologies are developed and introduced,
Advocates said:

    Technology is constantly changing, in every aspect of safety,
but that cannot be used as an excuse to avoid establishing minimum
levels of safe operation for motor vehicles. The fact that future
technological advances are likely should not prevent the need for
minimum safety requirements. NHTSA has clearly identified the
problem as distraction from the driving task, a safety problem that
is independent of the specific distracting technology. While future
technologies may involve different levels of driver distraction, the
problem of driver focus being diverted from the task of operating a
motor vehicle safely remains a constant. It makes no sense to avoid
regulating current technologies that are overly distracting because
future developments may present additional technological
distractions. Assuming that the NHTSA guidelines embody the proper
limitations on secondary tasks, they could apply to future as well
as current technologies. Moreover, establishing regulations that
prohibit the installation of new devices unless research clearly
indicates that the device does not impair a driver's ability to
operate a motor vehicle safely would apply equally to all new
electronic devices regardless of technology.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Ibid, p. 7.

    In response to NHTSA's point that available data are not sufficient
at this time to permit accurate estimation of the benefits and costs of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a mandatory rule in this area, Advocates said:

    Finally, the agency cites the limitation of data to accurately
estimate the benefits and costs of a mandatory rule in this area.
However, the agency indicates that ``17 percent (an estimated
899,000) of all police reported crashes involved some type of driver
distraction in 2010. Of those 899,000 crashes, distraction by a
device/control integral to the vehicle was reported in 26,000
crashes (3% of the distraction-related police reported crashes).''
By that account, a police-reported distracted driving crash occurs
every 20 minutes involving a device/control integral to the vehicle.
Furthermore, this is likely a conservative estimate of distraction-
related collisions given the current difficulties in identifying
distraction as a cause in crashes, the ability of law enforcement to
discern distraction from in-vehicle devices for inclusion on police
accident reports and the recording capability of current crash
databases. * * * [G]iven the significant volume of crashes already
recognized as linked to distraction, time spent waiting for new data
amounts to unacceptable delay while people are needlessly injured or
killed in these very preventable collisions.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Ibid, p. 8.

    Advocates further commented that the organization did not believe
that significant effort would be required to arrive at an estimate of
benefits.
    Support for the ``take no action at all on driver distraction''
position on driver distraction was indicated by multiple individual
commenters. Typical of this position is the following quote from a
comment from an individual:

    I understand the need for regulations and appreciate that our
government is trying to keep us safer, however, I also resent that
our government has invaded every aspect of our lives to a ridiculous
degree. This proposal, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0053 Visual-Manual
NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic
Devices is another example of taking things too far. Immediate
communications in today's society has become a necessity and instead
of proposing doing away with or placing severe restrictions on
everyone, place harsher sentences for people who cause accidents due
to distracted driving. GPS navigation is a plus for those who are
directionally challenged or those who have to make deliveries to
locations to which they are unfamiliar. The many should not be
restricted because of the few.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Comments received from Michael S. Dale. Accessed at
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA declines to take no action to mitigate driver distraction, as
suggested by some commenters. As discussed both earlier in this notice,
and in the Initial Notice, NHTSA's crash data show that 17 percent (an
estimated 899,000) of all police-reported crashes in 2010 involved some
type of driver distraction. These distraction-related crashes lead, on
the average, to thousands of fatalities (3,092 fatalities or 9.4
percent of those killed in 2010) and over 400,000 injured people each
year (approximately 17 percent of annual injuries). This large number
of fatalities, injuries, and crashes motivates NHTSA to take
appropriate action to reduce these numbers.
    In response to the comments that NHTSA should issue a regulation
instead of voluntary guidelines, NHTSA explained in the Initial Notice
that voluntary guidelines are appropriate at this time because of the
need for additional research on distraction and its effect on driving
and because of the rapid pace of technology changes in the area of in-
vehicle electronic devices. The agency also noted concerns with the
sufficiency of existing data to estimate the benefits of an in-vehicle
electronic device regulation and that driver distraction testing
involves drivers with inherent individual differences. These individual
differences present new challenges to NHTSA in terms of developing
repeatable, objective test procedures to determine conformance. After
carefully considering all of the comments, NHTSA continues to believe
that voluntary guidelines are the appropriate action to take at this
time to reduce the potential for driver distraction.
    The commenters who supported regulation instead of guidelines
appear to have based their concerns on the premise that manufacturers
will ignore the NHTSA Guidelines and that the Guidelines will have a
limited effect, if any, on distracted driving. However, many vehicle
manufacturers have already indicated their commitment to mitigate
distracted driving and have shown great interest in the NHTSA
Guidelines, providing detailed comments and participating in the
technical workshop and public meetings held by the agency on this
subject. Based on this interest, NHTSA strongly believes that many
manufacturers will choose to design visual-manual, in-vehicle device
interfaces to conform to the NHTSA Guidelines, and that, while
voluntary, the NHTSA Guidelines will have the effect of reducing the
potential for driver distraction from these devices. The agency plans
to monitor industry conformance to the Guidelines, which will aid in
evaluating the Guidelines' effectiveness.
    In considering Advocates' comments opposing the agency's stated
reasons for adopting voluntary guidelines instead of regulations at
this time, NHTSA agrees that the issues identified by the agency in the
Initial Notice do not necessarily prevent the agency from issuing a
regulation. However, if the agency were to pursue a regulatory
approach, these issues would be a concern, and in light of the strong
likelihood that manufacturers will choose to conform to the NHTSA
Guidelines, NHTSA believes that voluntary guidelines are the
appropriate action to take at this time to reduce driver distraction.
    NHTSA emphasizes that the issuance of voluntary guidelines at this
time does not represent a decision to never issue regulations in this
area. NHTSA will continue to conduct and review research on distracted
driving and collect relevant data. The agency will also monitor
conformance with the NHTSA Guidelines through testing of production
vehicles. As NHTSA gathers more information on distracted driving, the
agency may decide, at some future time, that regulation in this area is
warranted.

2. The Alliance Guidelines Adequately Address Distraction
a. Summary of Comments
    Comments were received from BMW Group, General Motors, and
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, recommending that NHTSA should adopt the
current voluntary Alliance Guidelines without modification. BMW's
comments were the most detailed on this issue. BMW stated:

    The Notice states that NHTSA has been monitoring and conducting
research of the implementation of the Alliance Guidelines, and found
``(1) Manufacturers have different interpretations of the guidelines
themselves, leading to different implementations, (2) newer
techniques exist to evaluate these interfaces than existed nearly a
decade ago, (3) the guidelines have not kept pace with technology,
and (4) more recent data compiled from naturalistic driving studies
implies that more stringent criteria are needed.''

BMW would like to submit the following comments to each of the above
NHTSA findings:

    (1) NHTSA's communication with manufacturers on how they
implement the guidelines and what tools are being used was limited.
Differences in the results may also be the result of differences in
the HMI design of each manufacturer.
* * * * *
    (2) The proposed methods in the Federal Guidelines do not differ
in terms of being new from what the Alliance Guidelines propose. The
Federal Guidelines include measurements of glance behavior, as well
as driving performance compared to an accepted reference task, and
an occlusion method. The main difference among both sets of
guidelines is that NHTSA has set unfounded more stringent
performance criteria than the Alliance and eliminated performance
testing in terms of driving behavior.
    (3) NHTSA has not stated which particular new technology is not
covered by the scope of the Alliance Guidelines. In fact, the
Alliance guidelines actually refer to ``new'' information and
communication technology and devices with visual and manual/visual
interfaces.
    (4) NHTSA only provides results for light weight vehicles from
the 100-Car study. However, in this study no ``new'' technology
besides nomadic devices was installed in the vehicles. In addition,
NHTSA does not provide any real world safety data that shows the
need for the Alliance criteria to be updated. NHTSA did however
provide data from a study with professional truck drivers that
should not be compared to normal drivers and light weight vehicles.
* * * * *
* * * BMW believes it is easier for vehicle manufacturers to agree
to modifying current guidelines based on new emerging technologies,
than for the Agency to go through Federal notices, commenting
periods, etc., to modify the Federal Guidelines.\35\

    \35\ Comments received from BMW Group, p. 4. Accessed at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number
0094.

    On the other hand, Dr. Richard A. Young of the Wayne State
University School of Medicine commented that the NHTSA Guidelines
represent a potential opportunity to make much-needed updates to the
Alliance Guidelines.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Comments of Dr. Richard A. Young, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-
0053-0106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    After carefully reviewing all of the comments received on this
point, NHTSA continues to believe that it should issue its own
voluntary driver distraction guidelines that improve upon the Alliance
Guidelines. Although the agency agrees with BMW that the NHTSA
Guidelines adopt many of the same approaches contained in the Alliance
Guidelines, the NHTSA Guidelines improve upon the Alliance Guidelines
in a number of ways, and NHTSA believes that these improvements support
the agency's decision to draft its own Guidelines.
    First, NHTSA believes that distraction guidelines should be
applicable to all communications, entertainment, information, and
navigation devices installed in vehicles as original equipment.
Although the Alliance Guidelines apply to new technology, as commented
on by BMW, the Alliance Guidelines explicitly state that they are not
intended to apply to common electronic devices referred to as
``conventional information or communications systems,'' such as radios,
CD players, cassette players, and MP3 players. However, even these
conventional systems can potentially distract drivers and present a
safety risk,\37\ and, as in-vehicle systems continue to offer more
functionality, the interfaces for these conventional systems could
become more complex and potentially more distracting in the future.
Accordingly, NHTSA believes that it is important to establish
guidelines that are applicable to tasks associated with these systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ For example, the 100-car study indicated that operating a
CD player as a risk odds ratio of 2.25. Again, a risk ratio of 1.0
means that a secondary task has the same risk as average driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, new guidelines are needed so as to incorporate the
latest driver distraction research into the guidelines. There has been
much research on driver distraction in the nearly seven years since the
Alliance Guidelines were last updated. This research includes
controlled human factors studies, naturalistic study analyses, and
crash statistics studies examining the real world effects of
distraction on safety. NHTSA believes that it is valuable to
incorporate the results of this recent research into guidelines that
serve to reduce or prevent driver distraction.
    In particular, some of the more recent research suggests
improvements that can be made to certain aspects of the Alliance
Guidelines. For example, for the eye glance test protocol, the Alliance
Guidelines use radio tuning as a reference task to establish the
maximum recommended threshold for the total eyes off road time (TEORT)
to complete a task. NHTSA believes that the Alliance Guidelines make a
strong case for basing the maximum amount of distraction associated
with a task on the level of distraction induced by performing a
``reference task.'' We also agree that manual radio tuning is an
appropriate reference task.
    The Alliance Guidelines acceptance criterion for TEORT is 20
seconds, based on the organization's estimate of the 85th percentile
TEORT for radio tuning. However, as described in the Initial Notice and
in Section IV.F, NHTSA's recent research results suggested that the
85th percentile TEORT associated with radio tuning is 12 seconds rather
than 20 seconds. Moreover, NHTSA's review of the Alliance's basis for
the 20-second value revealed several statistical problems, described
below in Section IV.F.2. Examining the data used by the Alliance, NHTSA
used three methods to estimate the 85th percentile TEORT for radio
tuning and the average of the three TEORT values was 12.33 seconds.
Although NHTSA supports the reference-task approach used in the
Alliance Guidelines, this research and analysis undermines the 20-
second TEORT threshold in the Alliance Guidelines and indicates a need
for more up-to-date driver distraction guidelines. Based on this
research and confirmed by the agency's analysis of the data relied on
in the Alliance Guidelines, the NHTSA Guidelines include a 12-second
TEORT threshold.
    NHTSA also used more recent research in designing the recommended
test protocols. This research provided information regarding the
robustness of eye glance metrics and protocol aspects such as sample
size and its effect on the statistical validity of test results. A
discussion of this research, completed from 2007 to 2011, is summarized
in the Initial Notice.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NHTSA believes that Federal driver distraction guidelines are also
necessary

in order to avoid potential safety risks not addressed by the Alliance
Guidelines and to ensure that guidelines promoted by NHTSA are
consistent with other Federal actions regarding distraction. For
example, although the Alliance Guidelines list a few general categories
of information that should always be inaccessible to the driver while
driving (e.g., video, automatically-scrolling text), most activities
are permitted if they meet the acceptance criteria. NHTSA believes that
certain additional activities, including those that are discouraged by
public policy and, in some instances, prohibited by Federal regulation
and State law (e.g., entering or displaying text messages), should
always be inaccessible to the driver while driving.
    Another example relates to when excessively distracting tasks are
accessible. The Alliance Guidelines recommend locking out tasks that do
not meet the Alliance Guidelines while driving and define ``driving''
as when the vehicle speed is 5 mph or greater. Thus, excessively
distracting tasks can be performed when the vehicle is moving slowly or
stopped in traffic. However, as described in detail in Section IV.D
below, NHTSA is concerned about the safety risk associated with
allowing excessively distracting tasks to be performed by while a
vehicle is in motion or in traffic and notes that the relevant Federal
statute, regulations, and Executive Order related to texting while
driving define ``driving'' to include the operation of a vehicle while
temporarily stopped because of traffic, a traffic light or stop sign or
other momentary delays. Accordingly, NHTSA has defined driving to
include all situations in which the vehicle's engine or motor is
operating unless the vehicle is in Park or, for manual transmission
vehicles, an equivalent condition.
    NHTSA has also identified some aspects of the current Alliance
Guidelines that are loosely specified and believes it is necessary to
provide well-specified test criteria in order to have a standardized
test for measuring the impact of secondary task performance and
determining whether the task is acceptable for performance while
driving. Otherwise, implementation of the guidance may be inconsistent
because of varying interpretations in the industry. In particular, a
clear definition of a ``task'' must be asserted to specify the series
of driver actions needed to perform a secondary task that should be
assessed for conformance to guidelines criteria. While the definition
of a task used in the Alliance Guidelines is short and conceptually
clear,\39\ it can be difficult to determine whether a certain activity
should be considered one task or several. This is particularly
challenging to do for devices and tasks that have not yet been
developed. The Alliance Guidelines also provide little information
about test participant characteristics and do not indicate how many
participants should be tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The Alliance Guidelines define a task as ``a sequence of
control operations (i.e., a specific method) leading to a goal at
which the driver will normally persist until the goal is reached.
Example: Obtaining guidance by entering a street address using the
scrolling list method until route guidance is initiated.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, NHTSA is specifying a recommended test procedure that
is straight-forward, clearly defined, and well-substantiated to aid the
voluntary adoption of its NHTSA Guidelines. Minimizing the opportunity
for variability in carrying out the test procedure will ensure that
manufacturers will be able to easily and consistently implement the
NHTSA Guidelines across their light vehicle fleets.
    Finally, in response to BMW's final point that ``it is easier for
vehicle manufacturers to agree into [sic] modifying current guidelines
based on new emerging technologies, than for the Agency to go through
Federal notices, commenting periods, etc., to modify the Federal
Guidelines,'' \40\ (emphasis added by NHTSA), the agency notes that it
is not just the vehicle manufacturers who are concerned about the
effect of driver distraction on motor vehicle safety. In response to
the Initial Notice, NHTSA received many comments from individual
members of the general public, consumer advocacy organizations (e.g.,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Consumers Union) and other
Government agencies (National Transportation Safety Board) all of whom
were concerned about the contents of these guidelines. The input of all
stakeholders, not just vehicle manufacturers, should be considered in
taking action to reduce driver distraction. The advantage of issuing
Federal guidelines is that by providing public notice and facilitating
participation from various stakeholders through a public comment
period, more information from different sources can be considered and
evaluated as part of developing and updating the guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Suggestions To Wait for Better Data or Additional Research To Be
Completed
a. Summary of Comments
    Comments were received from Agero, BMW Group, General Motors,
Global Automakers, the National Safety Council, Toyota Motor North
America, Inc., VDA, the German Association of the Automotive Industry,
and Volkswagen Group of America recommending that NHTSA should delay
issuance of its Guidelines (or, if NHTSA decided to issue its own
guidelines now, make them identical to the current voluntary Alliance
Guidelines on an interim basis) until better driver distraction data
becomes available. One commonly mentioned upcoming source of better
driver distraction data is that coming from the second Strategic
Highway Research Program (SHRP2).
    Performance of the SHRP2 program was authorized by Congress in the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59, signed by President George W. Bush on
August 10, 2005) to address some of the most pressing needs related to
the nation's highway system. It is managed by the Transportation
Research Board on behalf of the National Research Council. One of the
four research focus areas of SHRP2 is the Safety area. The goal of the
Safety area is to:

    Prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by
understanding driver behavior. The Safety area is conducting the
largest ever naturalistic driving study to better understand the
interaction among various factors involved in highway crashes--
driver, vehicle, and infrastructure--so that better safety
countermeasures can be developed and applied to save lives.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Information taken from the SHRP2 Web site. Accessed on July
5, 2012 at http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/General.aspx.

    SHRP2's naturalistic data collection is currently in progress. This
data collection is projected to be completed and the data is estimated
to become available for analysis beginning in April 2014.
    Volkswagen Group of America was typical of the commenters
advocating that NHTSA wait until SHRP2 results become available before
issuing its own guidelines. Quoting from the Volkswagen comments:

    Volkswagen urges the agency to reconsider the current proposal.
The agency should await the results of the ongoing Strategic Highway
Research Program 2 (SHRP2). The SHRP2 naturalistic driving study was
in large part motivated by the need to gain a better

understanding of driver distraction under conditions of real-world
driving (as opposed to under experimental conditions). The
comprehensive monitoring data collected under SHRP2 will provide
evidence gathered under normal driving conditions by a wide range of
drivers, the data from whom will show when and how they engage in
secondary tasks while driving, including what happens when things go
wrong. Given that more recent human factors studies have shown that
the relationship between relative crash risk and simple eye glance
metrics such as eyes-off-road time may be more complicated than
first assumed, we believe that the data expected from SHRP2 will be
essential to understanding whether or to what extent eye glance
measures can be used to accurately assess distraction risk, or
whether other performance-based measures are necessary for this
purpose. We recommend that the Agency await the results of the SHRP2
project, and engage with the industry and academia in conducting
peer-reviewed studies to support improved test methods and
metrics.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Comments received from Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
p. 7. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053,
Document Number 0101.

    In their comments, the National Safety Council discussed what they
perceive as the limitations of naturalistic driving data for
determining the adequacy of countermeasures for limiting and reducing
driver distraction associated with the use of in-vehicle electronic
devices while driving. Quoting from the National Safety Council
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
comments:

    Over-reliance on a single study design. The decision to release
guidelines in three phases, rolled out over many years, with the
first phase addressing visual-manual use of electronic devices, is
based on the findings of only three studies. Each of these studies
has significant limitations. NSC believes that Federal guidelines
with the potential to influence the safety of vehicles should be
based on a much broader range of research.
    Naturalistic driving studies have been described by those
involved with this research as the ``gold standard'' in traffic
safety research. Certainly there are some driver distraction
insights that can be uniquely gained by this study design; for
example, in-vehicle cameras record crash factors that otherwise may
never be captured. However, the National Safety Council believes it
is inappropriate to rely so heavily on only one study design with a
limited number of participants and crashes. NSC does not believe
there is any single gold standard study design. There simply is no
perfect study design for an issue as complex as traffic safety. All
study designs--including naturalistic studies--have strengths and
limitations.
    The best approach is to base decision-making on the findings of
numerous studies of different designs, conducted by varying research
institutions. If there is a convergence of similar findings from
studies of varying designs, conducted by different researchers with
different participant populations, NSC believes that convergence of
findings deserves careful attention.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Comments received from the National Safety Council, pp. 2-
3. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document
Number 0085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    After carefully reviewing all of the comments received in response
to the Initial Notice, NHTSA continues to believe that it should issue
its voluntary Driver Distraction Guidelines immediately with this
notice based on its current research base. However, NHTSA emphasizes
that the agency remains open to amending the NHTSA Guidelines in the
future in response to the results of SHRP2.
    NHTSA has been sponsoring outside research and performing in-house
research on driver distraction for approximately 20 years. In addition,
during this time NHTSA has reviewed much of the research performed by
academia, the motor vehicle industry, other Government agencies, and
other organizations. Although the NSC is correct that there is no one
gold standard study design or approach, there is in fact currently no
better method for establishing crash risk for distracting behaviors
than naturalistic driving studies. Experimental studies conducted with
simulators and test-tracks are excellent for observing how distracting
behaviors can affect driver performance measures such as reaction times
to critical events, lane keeping performance, headway maintenance, and
visual attention, but they cannot estimate crash risk. In addition,
experimental methods do not capture the critical element of when
drivers choose to engage in distracting behaviors. Naturalistic driving
studies measure distracting behaviors as drivers actually choose to
engage in them in their normal driving conditions and patterns, and
they establish the crash risk associated with those distracting
behaviors. Dozens of experimental studies (see Regan, Lee, and Young,
2009) have demonstrated key distraction effects like slower reaction
times, but researchers can only estimate the impact of those effects on
the potential for crash consequences. Although naturalistic driving
studies cannot measure precise driving performance decrements like
experimental studies can, naturalistic driving studies are able
determine whether the behaviors associated with those performance
decrements actually lead to elevated crash risk. Accordingly, NHTSA
feels strongly that the referenced naturalistic driving studies provide
sufficient justification for pursuing the selected test method and
thresholds.
    NHTSA eagerly awaits results from SHRP2, which should materialize
in the next two to three years, the agency's own naturalistic cell
phone data collection, and other in-progress or planned research.
However, the agency notes SHRP2 is a far-reaching naturalistic driving
study that was designed to address a variety of issues related to
nation's highway system, including the high toll taken by highway
deaths and injuries, aging infrastructure that must be rehabilitated
with minimum disruption to users, and congestion stemming both from
inadequate physical capacity and from events that reduce the effective
capacity of a highway facility. Although distraction is an important
topic for SHRP2 data, it is not one of the primary motivations for the
program as suggested by Volkswagen. NHTSA strongly believes that the
data gained from completed naturalistic driving studies and other
research into visual attention measures is sufficient and provides a
reasonable basis to proceed with the immediate issuance of Phase 1 of
the voluntary NHTSA Guidelines.
    A major reason compelling NHTSA to release Driver Distraction
Guidelines now is that they are based on a number of fundamental
principles related to driver distraction that are unlikely to be
contradicted by future research. These principles are:
     The driver's eyes should usually be looking at the road
ahead,
     The driver should be able to keep at least one hand on the
steering wheel while performing a secondary task (both driving-related
and non-driving related),
     The distraction induced by any secondary task performed
while driving should not exceed that associated with a baseline
reference task (manual radio tuning),
     Any task performed by a driver should be interruptible at
any time,
     The driver should control the pace of task interactions,
not the system/device, and
     Displays should be easy for the driver to see and content
presented should be easily discernible.
    Results from future research could cause NHTSA to consider changing
some of the details of its Guidelines; however, modification of any of
these basic principles is unlikely.
    SHRP2's naturalistic data collection is projected to be completed
and the data become available for analysis in March 2014. Allowing a
reasonable amount of time to evaluate the results and draft guidelines
based on those results,

awaiting the results from SHRP2 could result in approximately a three-
year delay versus issuing NHTSA's Phase 1 Guidelines immediately.
    There are practical consequences to delaying the issuance of the
NHTSA Guidelines. As discussed above, the most recent crash data
available, 2010 data, show that 899,000 motor vehicle crashes involved
a report of a distracted driver. These distraction-related crashes
lead, on the average, to thousands of fatalities (3,092 fatalities) and
over 400,000 injured people each year. NHTSA believes that the
voluntary Guidelines are an important step towards reducing the number
of these crashes and resulting fatalities, and, therefore, there is a
need to issue them as soon as possible.
    In summary, NHTSA believes that it has sufficient information to
issue good Driver Distraction Guidelines immediately that will reduce
the driver distraction safety problem. With the greater flexibility
afforded by voluntary guidelines, NHTSA expects that it will be able to
rapidly modify its Guidelines should SHRP2 results indicate ways in
which to make the NHTSA Guidelines more effective.
4. Suggestions for Using Voluntary Consensus Standards as a Basis for
Developing NHTSA's Guidelines
a. Summary of Comments
    Comments were received from Dr. Paul Green and American Honda Motor
Company drawing NHTSA's attention to two SAE recommended practices, SAE
J2364 and J2365. Both commenters disagree with NHTSA's statement in the
Initial Notice that:

    The agency is not aware of any applicable voluntary consensus
standards that are appropriate for driver distraction stemming from
driver interactions with in-vehicle electronic devices.

Dr. Green's comments go on to state:

    The NHTSA guidelines are based on the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (AAM) guidelines, which are an elaboration of the
European Statement of Principles. The process by which the Statement
of Principles was developed is not well known, but what matters most
is that the AAM is not a recognized standards development
organization. Their standards were not developed in meetings the
public could attend, there were no well-advertised calls for public
comment, and other requirements for recognized standards development
organization were not followed.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Comments received from Dr. Paul Green, p. 2. Accessed at
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0052.

    Comments were also received from American Honda Motor Company and
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) drawing
NHTSA's attention to a variety of international standards for assessing
driver distraction. Mentioned were: ISO 15007:2002, ``Road Vehicles--
Measurement of Driver Visual Behavior with Respect to Transport
Information and Control Systems,'' ISO 16673:2007 ``Road vehicles--
Ergonomic Aspects of Transport Information and Control Systems--
Occlusion Method to Assess Visual Demand due to the use of In-Vehicle
Systems,'' and ISO 26022:2010, ``Road vehicles--Ergonomic Aspects of
Transport Information and Control Systems--Simulated Lane Change Test
to Assess In-Vehicle Secondary Task Demand.'' The ISO also pointed out
that, since NHTSA is interested in detection response tasks testing, a
new ISO standard, WD 17488, ``Road vehicles--Transport Information and
Control Systems--Detection Response Task,'' is under development and
encourages NHTSA to participate in a joint development approach.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Comments received from ISO, p. 1. Accessed at
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0087.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    Three of the above mentioned recommended practices/international
standards were not discussed in the Initial Notice. A short description
of each is given followed by NHTSA's thoughts about that recommended
practice/international standard.
    SAE Recommended Practice J2364, ``Navigation and Route Guidance
Function Accessibility While Driving Rationale,'' establishes two
alternative testing procedures for determining which navigation and
route guidance functions should be accessible to the driver while the
vehicle is in motion. (This recommended practice could be generalized
to devices other than route navigation systems). The two testing
procedures are a static completion time method and an interrupted
vision (occlusion) method. Compliance criterion values are 15 seconds
for the static completion time method (15-second rule) and 20 seconds
Total Shutter Open Time (TSOT) for the occlusion method.
    NHTSA performed research on the diagnostic properties of the static
completion time test method during the late 1990's.\46\ Ten
participants, aged 55 to 69 years, completed 15 tasks, including
navigation system destination entry, radio tuning, manual phone
dialing, and adjusting the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
(HVAC) controls in a test vehicle. Correlations between static task
completion times and task completion times while driving were
relatively low. The results were interpreted to mean that static
measurement of task completion time was not sufficient for determining
whether a task was so distracting that it should not be performed while
driving. Based on these results, NHTSA looked to other metrics and
methods for use in assessing secondary task distraction in subsequent
research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Tijerina, L., Parmer, E., and Goodman, M.J., ``Driver
Workload Assessment of Route Guidance System Destination Entry While
Driving: A Test Track Study,'' Proceedings of the 5th ITS World
Congress, Berlin, Germany: VERTIS (CD-ROM), 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA does agree with the occlusion test method albeit with a
different TSOT criterion than recommended by SAE J2364. For the
procedural details of occlusion testing, NHTSA prefers ISO 16673:2007
which is an international voluntary consensus standard.
    SAE Recommended Practice J2365, ``Calculation of the Time to
Complete In-Vehicle Navigation and Route Guidance Tasks,'' establishes
a process for estimating the static completion time required to perform
a task by decomposing the task into a series of goals, sub-goals, and
actions and then assigning a static completion time estimate for each
action. Static completion time estimates are provided in an appendix to
the document.
    There are two reasons NHTSA chose not to use SAE J2365 in the NHTSA
Guidelines:
     It is a method for estimating static completion times for
performing a task. As such, it is useful during the design of a device.
However, NHTSA's monitoring of conformance to its Driver Distraction
Guidelines will be based on the testing of actual, production vehicles
and devices and not on estimates of driver performance while performing
a task.
     As discussed earlier, the results of past NHTSA static
task completion time research were interpreted to mean that static