measurement of task completion time was not sufficient to determine
whether a task was sufficiently distracting that it should not be
performed while driving.

For these reasons, NHTSA declines to adopt the suggestion that the
agency use SAE J2365 in its Guidelines.
    NHTSA has long been aware of ISO 15007:2002. Part 1 of this
standard contains eye glance measurement definitions while Part 2
discusses eye glance measurement methodological issues. This standard
does not specify a particular methodology for eye glance

measurement and is broad enough to cover many different methodologies.
    The NHTSA Guidelines are consistent with ISO 15007:2002 with
several minor exceptions. The NHTSA Guidelines also provide additional
detail about the methods for determining eye glances and ways to ensure
accuracy beyond ISO 15007:2002. Specifically, the NHTSA Guidelines
permit verification through either manual reduction of eye glance data
(researchers determining glance times from video footage) or eye
tracker data (glance times and eye glance location measured by a
device).
    When manual reduction of eye glance data has been required,
transition times (time between two eye glance fixations) are combined
with dwell times (the time fixated on a particular point) to define
glance duration, as specified by ISO 15007:2002.
    When data from an eye tracker is used, the glance time is defined
as the time away from the forward roadway view. Transition time away
from the forward view is combined with the dwell time while the driver
is looking at the secondary task interface, which is consistent with
the ISO specification; however transition time back to the forward
roadway view is not combined with the subsequent time spent looking
forward. This deviation is due to the fact that while a fixed boundary
is used to define the road center when analyzing the eye tracker data,
a comparable boundary defining the secondary task interface is not
used. This is because eye tracker precision deteriorates as the driver
moves his or her head away from the forward view. Boundaries near
secondary task interfaces are prone to error. Thus, NHTSA has defined
its eye glance metric (TEORT) in terms of time away from the forward
view to maximize precision. The agency has compared the times obtained
with eye tracker and manual reduction of the same data and have
concluded that differences between these approaches are negligible.
    NHTSA's test procedures are generally consistent with the
specifications of ISO 15007:2002, again with minor exceptions. In
particular, agency testing has not involved categorization of drivers
by visual ability or driving experience. Rather, NHTSA's test protocols
have required only that participants have a valid driver's license,
thus assuming a basic level of visual acuity, and that they drive a
minimum number of miles each year. Procedures for data collection,
reduction, and presentation have been consistent with ISO 15007:2002.
    ISO 26022:2010 describes a dynamic dual-task method that
quantitatively measures human performance degradation on a primary
driving-like task while a secondary task is being performed (Lane
Change Test). The result is an estimate of secondary task demand.
    NHTSA performed research on the diagnostic properties of the Lane
Change Test (LCT) method during 2006.\47\ Twenty-six participants, aged
25 to 50 years, performed the LCT in a driving simulator while
performing selected secondary tasks. The LCT uses a single metric that
is driving performance related. Results from this testing found that
the LCT's metric was less sensitive to differences between secondary
tasks than those from the Dynamic Following and Detection (DFD) test
protocol. The multiple metrics associated with the DFD protocol were
better able to capture the multidimensional aspects of distraction. The
Peripheral Detection Task (PDT) component of the DFD was thought to be
a more sensitive detection task than the detection task component used
in LCT, due to the higher frequency of stimulus presentations. As a
result, subsequent NHTSA research focused on the DFD test protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Vasko, S.M., and Mazzae,
E.N., ``Measuring Distraction Potential of Operating In-Vehicle
Devices,'' DOT HS 811 231, December 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA agrees that the Alliance Guidelines are not voluntary
consensus-based international or United States standards. In the
Initial Notice, they were referred to as ``industry-developed
standards.'' However, despite these facts, NHTSA continues to believe
that they are a better basis for development of the NHTSA Driver
Distraction Guidelines than the voluntary consensus standard cited by
the commenters.
    Finally, NHTSA has considerable interest in detection-response task
testing and believes that it may offer considerable promise for
acceptance testing for auditory-vocal human-machine interfaces. While
NHTSA is just getting started on this research, we will consider
participating with ISO in a joint development approach and
international standard.
5. Publish NHTSA's Driver Distraction Guidelines to Portable and
Aftermarket Devices as Soon as Possible
a. Summary of Comments
    Numerous commenters encouraged NHTSA to quickly develop and publish
its Driver Distraction Guidelines for non-OE electronic devices
(referred to as portable or aftermarket devices or PAD elsewhere in
this document) in light vehicles. Some commenters indicated that they
would prefer that NHTSA implement the guidelines for PAD simultaneously
with the guidelines for OE electronic devices.
    Commenters voiced concern that by having NHTSA's Driver Distraction
Guidelines only cover OE electronic devices, consumers would shift from
OE electronic devices to the less-restricted (but possibly also less
safe) PADs. Many commenters addressed this issue; quotes from some
typical comments are below. From the comment submitted by the Alliance:

    Consumers have numerous connectivity options, particularly via
portable electronic devices. They will quickly migrate to alternate,
and potentially more distracting and less safe, means of staying
connected if the use of in-vehicle or ``integrated'' options is
overly curtailed.
    In this regard, it has become increasingly clear to Alliance
members that guidelines for portable electronic devices need to be
developed in parallel with those for integrated systems and released
as a single, common set of comprehensive guideline for visual-manual
interfaces.\48\

    \48\ Comments received from the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, p. 2. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
2010-0053, Document Number 0104.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the comments received from Toyota:

    Recommend that NHTSA consider the unintended consequences of
substantially reducing the functionality of in-vehicle electronic
devices when drivers can easily switch to handheld devices which are
not designed specifically for use while driving.\49\

    \49\ Comments received from Toyota Motor North America, Inc., p.
2. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document
Number 0092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, from the comments received from Consumers Union:

    In addition, although the current set of Guidelines is not
intended to address portable devices, Consumers Union also hopes
NHTSA will clarify that the Guidelines do encompass controls
integral to the car that are meant to control portable devices. An
example is the ability to integrate portable music player or cell
phone control through the vehicle's controls. We also encourage
NHTSA to take up consideration of the Guidelines for portable
devices as soon as possible. As more and more portable
technologies--tablets being just the latest--become available for
incorporation into passenger vehicles, the need for NHTSA to address
the safety issues inherent therein is pressing.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA intends to publish the NHTSA Guidelines for light vehicles to
cover PADs as soon as feasible. This was originally stated in the April
2010 ``Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
Driver Distraction Program,'' \51\ (NHTSA's Distraction Plan) which
summarized steps that NHTSA intended to take to reduce crashes
attributable to driver distraction and it remains NHTSA's intention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ ``Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Driver Distraction Program,'' DOT HS 811 299, April
2010. Available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/811299.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in NHTSA's Distraction Plan, NHTSA is developing its
Driver Distraction Guidelines for light vehicles in three phases. The
first phase consists of these Guidelines for visual-manual interfaces
of OE electronic devices in vehicles. The second phase will address
visual-manual interfaces of PADs. The third phase will address
auditory-vocal interfaces for both OE electronic devices and PADs. The
commenters advocated for NHTSA to move rapidly ahead with Phase 2 of
its guidelines, and many of them want the Phase 2 Guidelines to be
released at the same time as the Phase 1 Guidelines.
    Issuing the Phase 2 Guidelines at this time is not a feasible
option. NHTSA is currently gathering information and developing the
draft Initial Notice for the Phase 2 NHTSA Guidelines. Completion of
this work is necessary before the Phase 2 Guidelines can be issued.
While this work is being performed, NHTSA will have the opportunity to
work with both the PAD and vehicle manufacturing communities to
discover the best ways to implement our recommendations for PADs.
    There are additional, PAD-specific, issues that NHTSA is
considering addressing in the Phase 2 Guidelines. Some of these
include:
     The issue of linking or pairing PADs and in-vehicle
systems and how to encourage use of the in-vehicle human machine
interface (HMI) rather than the PAD HMI.
     The issue of ensuring PAD-use is unimpaired for
passengers.
     The issue of PAD positioning within a motor vehicle. A PAD
could potentially obstruct a driver's vision or ability to safely
operate the vehicle.
     The issue of PAD mounting within a motor vehicle. A PAD
could potentially act as a projectile that may injure vehicle occupants
in the event of sudden severe maneuvering or a crash.
    The agency also declines to delay the Phase 1 Guidelines until the
Phase 2 Guidelines are ready to be issued. As described below in
Section IV.B.4, it is envisioned that automakers will likely choose to
incorporate the NHTSA guidelines during their normal vehicle redesign
schedule. Since this is typically every 3-5 years, it is expected that
most, if not all, vehicle models will not have completed a redesign
before the Phase 2 Guidelines are published. Given this, there should
be minimal impact given the slight time gap between the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 Guidelines and the fact that the same principles will guide
both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Guidelines.
    Although some commenters expressed concern that by having NHTSA's
Guidelines only cover OE electronic devices, consumers would shift from
OE electronic devices to the less-restricted (but possibly also less
safe) PAD devices, this concern is based on the assumption that safer
in-vehicle systems will not be sufficiently functional to attract
drivers away from use of hand-held devices and would somehow have the
opposite effect. On the contrary, vehicle manufacturers are rapidly
expanding the voice-command and hands-free, eyes-free capabilities of
their in-vehicle systems. These systems (designed to at least meet the
Alliance Guidelines) are engineered (and would remain so if designed in
conformance with NHTSA's Phase 1 Guidelines) to encourage the handheld
users to pair those devices with the vehicle's displays and controls.
Having done so, NHTSA sees no evidence that drivers would un-pair the
devices from the vehicle system simply to obtain marginally increased
functionality in very limited situations. For example, an in-vehicle
system that permits hands-free voice messaging has convenience
advantages over a hand-held device, such as the use of more accessible
controls and enhanced auditory clarity. As a result, the agency thinks
that there would be little incentive for a driver to revert to the
hand-held simply to perform a locked-out function such as texting.
Therefore, should manufacturers choose to conform to the NHTSA
guidelines, the agency thinks the more likely outcome is that drivers
will pair their hand-helds to the vehicle systems during all driving
situations, with a net benefit for safety.
    Accordingly, NHTSA believes that automotive safety can best be
maximized by proceeding with Phase 1 of its Driver Distraction
Guidelines (covering OE electronic devices in light vehicles) at this
time.
    NHTSA intends to issue its Phase 2 Driver Distraction Guidelines as
soon as feasible. The Phase 2 Guidelines will be based on general
principles similar to those upon which these Phase 1 Guidelines are
based. These principles are:
     The driver's eyes should usually be looking at the road
ahead,
     The driver should be able to keep at least one hand on the
steering wheel,
     Any task performed by driving should be interruptible at
any time,
     The driver should control the human-machine interface and
not vice versa, and
     Displays should be easy for the driver to see.
    Until the Phase 2 Guidelines are issued, the agency recommends that
developers and manufacturers of portable and aftermarket devices
consider these principles as they design and update their products.
NHTSA further encourages these developers and manufacturers to adopt
any recommendations in the Phase 1 Guidelines that they believe are
feasible and appropriate for their devices.
6. Develop NHTSA's Guidelines To Address Cognitive Distraction and
Voice Interfaces as Soon as Possible
a. Summary of Comments
    Numerous commenters discussed the role of cognitive distraction and
the need for guidelines that cover voice-activated technologies. Many
comments urged NHTSA to move swiftly toward the development of
guidelines to cover these technologies. The National Safety Council
(NSC) commented on the lack of recognition of the potential impact of
cognitive distraction. Specifically:

    The choice to focus on the three naturalistic studies, rather
than considering the body of research that examined cognitive
distraction of cell phone use, has led to a lack of discussion about
the potential impact of cognitive distraction for the first phases
of the guidelines.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Comments received from the National Safety Council, p. 4.
Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document
Number 0085.

On the relation between voice-based interfaces and cognitive
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
distraction NSC offered the following:

    NSC is concerned about the continued advance of voice-activated
in-vehicle technology without Federal guidelines in place, and
without testing for cognitive impact by researchers independent of
the auto industry. Once technology is introduced to the vehicle
fleet and consumers are influenced to use it, it will become very
difficult to change behaviors and the vehicle environment.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Ibid, p. 5.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) also expressed concern

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
about the under emphasis on cognitive distraction. Specifically,

    The NTSB is concerned that the NHTSA Driver Distraction Program
is based on the assumption that the primary risk associated with in-
vehicle PED [Portable Electronic Device; these comments use ``in-
vehicle PED'' to refer to both OE devices and PADs] use by drivers
is visual-manual interaction. It is essential to understand the
cognitive demands associated with secondary tasks, particularly
auditory-vocal communication tasks, in the context of in-vehicle
information and communication devices.
    As evidenced by the work of panelists attending the recent NTSB
forum on countermeasures to distraction, numerous studies have shown
that driver distraction occurs during both handheld and hands-free
cell phone conversations. NHTSA acknowledges that there is a large
amount of research on the topic of driver distraction, yet the
guidelines appear to focus on naturalistic driving studies.
    Particularly, this notice refers to naturalistic driving
research that reports that engaging in hands-free phone
conversations while driving is safe and provides a protective
effect. This finding, from the commercial vehicle naturalistic
study, is but one piece of an overall body of research and should be
considered within the context of its limitations. Although
naturalistic studies provide extremely strong evidence for
distraction involving driver behaviors such as visual or manual
activities, naturalistic studies, given their dependence on video
data, cannot fully assess the cognitive demands associated with
hands-free secondary tasks.
    The measurement of cognitive distraction that does not result in
drivers taking their eyes off the road is essential. Both driver
performance and brain activity should be assessed to better
understand cognitive load. The NTSB findings from its investigation
of the 2004 Alexandria, Virginia, motorcoach accident involving the
driver's use of a hands-free cell phone are consistent with research
showing that drivers conversing on a cell phone--whether handheld or
hands-free--are cognitively distracted from the driving task.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Comments received from the National Transportation Safety
Board, pp. 4-5. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-
0053, Document Number 0066.

    Accordingly, the NTSB encouraged NHTSA to minimize the delay
between the phases to avoid the ``* * * reliance on voice-based in-
vehicle systems with flawed designs that may increase the cognitive
distraction of drivers.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Closely tied to concerns about cognitive distraction are concerns
that voice recognition based controls may cause a substantial degree of
cognitive distraction. The following quote from the comment submitted
by Consumers Union discusses this concern:

    One possible consequence of these Guidelines is that many
functions will move from visual-manual control to voice recognition
control. While this technology is proven to reduce eyes-off-road
time, it does have some shortcomings. Systems have varying
capabilities of recognizing voice commands, especially when the
speaker has an accent. In addition, constant audio updates to a
driver can pose their own distraction problems.
    While we understand that voice controls will be addressed in a
later Notice, we are concerned that manufacturers will begin to
implement voice recognition technologies that are not currently
covered by any NHTSA Guidelines. This is especially concerning given
current driver demand for text messaging and social media
capability, both of which are prohibited by the Guidelines. If
manufacturers incorporate voice-controlled text messaging and social
media capabilities in their vehicles instead of visual-manual
controls, drivers could end up experiencing a constant and
continuous audio stream of updated information while driving--a
substitute that could be very cognitively distracting. Consumers
Union therefore urges NHTSA to issue its Guidelines for voice
operated controls as quickly as possible, and to address the
shortcomings of this particular technology, so that the distractions
do not simply shift from visual-manual to audio feeds.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Comments received from the Consumers Union, p. 4. Accessed
at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number
0063.

Other commenters encouraged NHTSA to consider the impact of voice-based
interfaces in mitigating the distraction effects of visual-manual
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
interfaces. General Motors (GM) offered the following comment:

    The guidelines should also recognize that voice-based
interactions can provide a key mechanism for drivers to interact
with systems in ways that support the operation and control of the
vehicle. Voice interaction can be a method to reduce both mean
glance times and total eyes-off-road time.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Comments received from General Motors, p. 2. Accessed at
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0103.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM recommended that:

    NHTSA immediately begin incorporating voice principles into its
distraction guidelines for both handheld/portable and in-vehicle
integrated electronic devices resulting in a fully integrated total
package.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Ibid.

    Agero Inc. was one of a number of organizations that encouraged
NHTSA to adopt a comprehensive and holistic approach to the development
of guidelines, based on their observation that, ``* * * embedded and
nomadic in-vehicle human machine interfaces (HMI)--visual, manual,
interactive voice, speech recognition, haptic and gesture display
technologies--have already begun to converge,'' \59\ and that ``* * *
natural-language speech systems present real potential to mitigate
driver distraction.'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Comments received from Agero Inc., p. 3. Accessed at
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0090.
    \60\ Ibid, p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA generally shares these commenters' concerns. We agree that
the issues associated with cognitive distraction and voice recognition-
based interactions need to be resolved to maximize motor vehicle
safety. However, these are challenging issues which NHTSA believes must
be carefully researched to provide a basis for guidelines.
    The general issue of cognitive distraction is as much an issue of
driver behavior as it is of OE/PAD device design. Cognitive distraction
is difficult to quantify because it occurs in many different driving
situations and is highly individualized. While drivers can be
cognitively distracted while talking on a cell phone, they can also be
cognitively distracted by a passenger or even just by themselves when
not using an electronic device (e.g., ``lost in thought''). Drivers can
be engaged in light conversation (little to no cognitive distraction)
or deeply engaged in discussion or debate (highly cognitively
distracting) either on a cell phone or with a passenger. Drivers
participating in a casual conversation on a cell phone (or to a
passenger), are likely to be minimally, if at all, cognitively
distracted.
    NHTSA is currently working to address driver behavior by supporting
state laws which prohibit certain distracting activities while driving
(e.g., texting and hand-held cell phone bans), driver education, and
other driver and passenger behavior modification efforts to influence
safe driving choices.
    NHTSA believes that well designed human-machine interfaces may help
to mitigate cognitive distraction. Complicated device interfaces can
clearly induce driver distraction during use. NHTSA's Phase 1 Driver
Distraction Guidelines will promote less distracting visual-manual
device interfaces. However, the agency shares commenters' concerns
about cognitive distraction due to driver use of auditory-vocal
interfaces. As noted above in the Consumers Union comments:

    If manufacturers incorporate voice-controlled text messaging and
social media capabilities in their vehicles instead of visual-manual
controls, drivers could end up experiencing a constant and
continuous

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

    \61\ Comments received from the Consumers Union, p. 4. Accessed
at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number
0063.

    Unfortunately, recognizing the distraction potential of auditory-
vocal interfaces is not the same as knowing how to prevent this issue
from becoming a problem. NHTSA currently has research under way on this
topic and more research is planned, which will be used as a basis for
guidelines covering auditory-vocal interfaces.
    NHTSA currently has two studies in progress on auditory-vocal
device interfaces. One study is a naturalistic examination of cell
phone usage with special emphasis on examining cognitive distraction
during phone calls. The other study is performing a literature review
of past cognitive distraction/auditory-vocal device interface research,
preparing a database of a portion of existing devices that have
auditory-vocal device interfaces, and developing additional topics
(beyond those listed below) for which research should be conducted
before the NHTSA Guidelines can be extended to cover auditory-vocal
device interfaces.
    Our principal planned research foci for upcoming NHTSA auditory-
vocal device interfaces are:
     What is a suitable acceptance test for auditory-vocal
device interfaces? Based on NHTSA's interpretation of current research,
it appears that a detection response paradigm combined with eye glance
measurement is likely to work. However, there is a multiplicity of
detection response test methods in the literature; NHTSA needs to
determine the best one for its purposes.
     What are suitable acceptance criteria for auditory-vocal
device interfaces? Once NHTSA has selected its final detection
response/eye glance measurement test, the agency needs to determine the
values associated with typical driver performance of its reference task
(manual radio tuning).
     Is a test of voice recognition accuracy needed? Past
testing indicates that an inadequate voice recognition engine can both
frustrate and highly distract drivers. However, market pressure may be
adequate to force companies into using a sufficiently good voice
recognition engine that neither frustrates nor distracts drivers.
     Is guidance from NHTSA on the menu structure of auditory-
vocal device interfaces needed? NHTSA is aware that poor menu
structures can greatly increase distraction during use of auditory-
vocal device interfaces. However, having a suitable acceptance test
protocol and criteria may be adequate to prevent this from becoming a
problem.
    NHTSA's planned auditory-vocal device interface research will take
some time to perform. This is why extension of the NHTSA Guidelines to
cover auditory-vocal device interfaces was delayed in NHTSA's Driver
Distraction Program \62\ until the third phase of guidelines
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ ``Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Driver Distraction Program,'' DOT HS 811 299, April
2010. Available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/811299.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. NHTSA's Intentions for Future Updating of Its Guidelines
a. Summary of Comments
    Some commenters asked about NHTSA's intentions for future updating
of the NHTSA Guidelines. Global Automakers outlined their vision for an
ongoing process in the following comments:

    Guidelines should be a dynamic, ongoing process, rather than an
endpoint as in the typical rulemaking process where a final rule is
issued.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Comments received from Global Automakers, p. 2. Accessed at
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0099.

    * * * we believe a collaborative industry-government effort
provides the most constructive approach going forward. Through such
an approach NHTSA benefits from the latest industry knowledge and
experiences, while allowing automakers to participate in developing
the guidelines we are asked to adopt. * * * industry should take a
greater role in the ongoing process, since the manufacturers are on
the front line of developing new technologies and are directly
affected by any failure of the Guidelines to keep abreast of recent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
developments.\64\

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

    \64\ Ibid, pp. 2-3.

    It is our members' intention to continue their efforts to
address driver distraction and maintain communication with the
agency on this matter well beyond the comment period deadline.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Ibid, p. 2.

    American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) provided a similar vision
for ongoing refinement of the Guidelines as new empirical results
become available. They refer to the human factors principles that
yielded metrics for occlusion and the radio tuning reference task as a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
point of departure:

    We ask that NHTSA work with industry experts to peer review
these and other technical aspects of the guidelines to avoid
implementing overly restrictive guidelines that will require a quick
reaction by the automakers to adhere to the guidelines in their
current form, but may evolve to be less restrictive as additional
testing and new technologies demonstrate the suitability of less
severe guidelines in the future.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Comments received from American Honda Motor Co., Inc., p.
7. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document
Number 0119.

    Honda also suggested a more formal approach for ongoing work, which
would first involve holding one or more workshops to identify and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
address unresolved questions about the proposed Guidelines:

    After NHTSA issues the final guidelines, Honda requests that
NHTSA conduct a technical workshop or perhaps a series of workshops
until the remaining questions about the guidelines are resolved.
Past technical workshops have been beneficial in assuring a common
understanding of guidelines and have helped promote consistent
practices among test labs, automakers, and suppliers.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Ibid, p. 8.

    The second part of the approach proposed by Honda involves
assessing the effectiveness of the guidelines when they have been fully
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
implemented:

    Honda recommends that these guidelines include periodic
measurement of the effectiveness of the guidelines to assure that
they are achieving the intended results.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Ibid, p. 4.

    Agero, Inc. also advocated a more holistic process organized around
an agency-industry coalition, which would forge a stronger connection
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
between the technical content of the guidelines and its precursors:

    One of the first goals of this coalition would be to reach a
consensus on the current knowledge gaps and a subsequent research
roadmap, followed by a systematic, collaborative, multi-industry
process that will arrive at revised guidelines based upon the
previous work of the Alliance [of] Automobile Manufacturers and the
Society of Automotive Engineers' Voice User Interface Working
Group.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Comments received from Agero, Inc., p. 4. Accessed at
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0090.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A working group framework will enable a more dynamic and
thorough investigation, broaden participation, promote cross-
industry consensus, and allow sufficient time to complete critical
research and scope potential technology and driver education
advancements.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Ibid, p. 8.

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA agrees with commenters that the NHTSA Guidelines should be
kept up-to-date through a dynamic, ongoing process. The issuance with
this notice of the Phase 1 NHTSA Guidelines, while

significant, is only a step in the process of the development of
NHTSA's Guidelines. NHTSA intends to take multiple future actions to
keep the NHTSA Guidelines up-to-date.
    In its April 2010 ``Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Driver Distraction Program,'' \71\ (NHTSA's
Distraction Plan), NHTSA publically committed itself to issuing two
more phases of its Driver Distraction Guidelines. Phase 2 will provide
recommendations for portable and aftermarket device. Phase 3 will
provide recommendations for auditory-vocal interfaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ ``Overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Driver Distraction Program,'' DOT HS 811 299, April
2010. Available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/811299.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to issuing Guideline notices, NHTSA intends to keep its
Guidelines up-to-date through the issuance of Guideline Interpretation
letters. These will be similar to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) interpretation letters. All Guideline Interpretation
letters will be posted to an appropriate place on NHTSA's Web site so
as to be available to all interested parties.
    Procedures for requesting an interpretation of the NHTSA Guidelines
have been added to the Guidelines.
    NHTSA is interested in working with all interested parties to keep
the NHTSA Guidelines up-to-date and, to the extent possible, to
coordinate future efforts and research. In accordance with commenters'
suggestion, we may hold another technical workshop on the Phase 1
Guidelines. To ensure that technical workshops are open to all
interested parties, any technical workshop will be announced in advance
in the Federal Register.
    NHTSA continues to be open to meeting with interested parties that
have Guidelines-related concerns or issues that they wish to discuss
with us.
    Finally, NHTSA will keep open a Driver Distraction Guideline docket
for the foreseeable future. However, in accordance with normal NHTSA
practice, a new docket number will generally be assigned with each
notice announcing updates to the Guidelines. Submissions to the docket
are an effective means of transmitting concerns to NHTSA.
8. Reliance on Limited Amount of Research in Developing NHTSA's
Guidelines
a. Summary of Comments
    Some commenters expressed concern about the reliance on a limited
amount of research in developing NHTSA's Guidelines. Two commenters
questioned the lack of breadth in the supporting materials cited. The
following comment was provided by Dr. Paul Green:

    * * * the paucity of citations of other relevant research
suggests a narrow view of relevant data, especially given the DOT-
supported research is only [a] small fraction of the research * * *
on driver distraction.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Comments received from Dr. Paul Green, p. 4. Accessed at
www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 0052.

    He provided a number of sources that he thought should be cited,
including several NHTSA studies. According to Dr. Green, the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
consequence of this narrow focus is likely to be the following:

    The docket identifies a long-term goal of having these
guidelines become an international standard. However if there are no
citations of relevant research from Europe and Japan (there may be 1
citation), then acceptance of the NHTSA Guidelines outside of the
U.S. becomes difficult.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Ibid, p. 4.

    The National Safety Council (NSC) also refers to the narrow range
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of research cited to support the proposed guidelines:

    The decision to release guidelines in three phases, rolled out
over many years, with the first phase addressing visual-manual use
of electronic devices, is based on the findings of only three
studies. Each of these studies has significant limitations. NSC
believes that Federal guidelines with the potential to influence the
safety of vehicles should be based on a much broader range of
research.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Comments received from The National Safety Council, p. 1.
Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document
Number 085.

    There is no discussion of why the preponderance of non-
automobile industry-funded research, and research beyond the NHTSA
and FMCSA studies with VTTI, were not drawn upon for these
guidelines. It is important to provide an explanation of the reasons
for ignoring such a wide body of driver distraction research. There
should also be an explanation regarding why the guidelines are based
only upon USDOT-funded research without review of the vast body of
other research.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Ibid, p. 2.

    Toyota Motor North America noted the following limitation of one of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the main studies cited by NHTSA:

    * * * the 100-Car Study was completed in 2005 and does not
include the in-vehicle technologies that are prevalent in our
vehicles today.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Comments received from Toyota Motor North America, Inc., p.
3. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document
Number 092.

    The NSC provided the following comments to describe the effect of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
this problem:

    * * * guideline decision making is therefore based on a very
small number of crashes and a very limited population observed in
these studies, as acknowledged by NHTSA in the guidelines document *
* * Thus, crash risk estimates produced by these studies are derived
from an extremely small sample of crashes and are clearly not
representative. NSC questions whether these crash risk estimates
should be accepted to the degree they are, and whether they should
form the basis of Federal decision-making.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Comments received from The National Safety Council, p. 2.
Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document
Number 085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA is aware of the vast amount of driver distraction literature
beyond the papers and reports referenced in the preamble of the Initial
Notice. The Initial Notice preamble was not intended to serve as a
comprehensive driver distraction literature review. The research
mentioned in the preamble was that necessary to understand the
underlying basis for NHTSA's proposed Driver Distraction Guidelines.
    Relative to the concerns raised by the NSC and Toyota, NHTSA agrees
that the 100-Car Study collected data on a very small number of crashes
and a very limited population of drivers. Since data collection for
this study was completed in 2005, it was unable to collect data of
several in-vehicle technologies prevalent in our vehicles today (e.g.,
text messaging). However, the 100-Car Study data does provide what
NHTSA believes to be the best available estimates of the crash risk of
various driver distraction risks for light vehicles that we have today.
As discussed earlier in this notice, NHTSA does not want to wait to
issue its Phase 1 Guidelines until data from the second Strategic
Highway Research Program (SHRP2) naturalistic data collection becomes
available.
    NHTSA believes that it has sufficient information to issue Driver
Distraction Guidelines immediately that will reduce the driver
distraction safety problem. Therefore, NHTSA is proceeding to issue its
voluntary driver distraction guidelines immediately with this notice
based upon its current research base.
9. Concerns That Updating Vehicle Models to Meet the NHTSA Guidelines
Will Be Expensive
a. Summary of Comments
    Two automakers (Toyota and Chrysler) disagreed with NHTSA's
conclusion about the expected effects of

the Guidelines. The following comment from Toyota Motor North America,
Inc. summarizes this concern.

    In the notice, NHTSA states that the proposed guidelines would
require minor changes to in-vehicle electronic devices; however
Toyota's analysis indicates that the majority of our in-vehicle
electronic devices will not meet these Guidelines.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Comments received from Toyota Motor North America, Inc., p.
2. Accessed at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document
Number 092.

    Referring to the same statements in the guidelines proposal,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysler Group LLC provided the following comment:

    Chrysler conducted an in-depth assessment of the guideline's
testing protocols which included user testing of both the eye glance
and occlusion methods per NHTSA's proposed guidelines. Based on this
assessment using actual participants, Chrysler disagrees with
NHTSA's above mentioned conclusion.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Comments received from Chrysler Group LLC, p. 3. Accessed
at www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2010-0053, Document Number 095.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is likely that most of Chrysler's current in-vehicle systems
will require changes to meet the new guidelines requiring
significant development costs * * * \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Ibid, p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. NHTSA's Response
    NHTSA emphasizes that its Driver Distraction Guidelines are
voluntary and nonbinding and are neither a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) nor regulation. As such, automobile manufacturers are
not required to adhere to these recommendations (although NHTSA
certainly hopes they will do so) or incur costs as a result. In
implementing the recommendations of these Guidelines, manufacturers are
free to do so in the most cost effective manner.
    Additionally, all members of the Alliance have committed themselves
to producing vehicles that meet the Alliance Guidelines. Most of the
recommendations in the Alliance Guidelines are carried over into the
NHTSA Guidelines unchanged. However, the NHTSA Guidelines are more
stringent than the Alliance Guidelines in two major areas:
     NHTSA has added three per se lock outs: ``displaying
images,'' ``manual text entry,'' and ``displaying text to be read.''
     NHTSA is not including Alliance Principle 2.1 Alternative
B, an alternative protocol for evaluating distraction, in our list of
recommended acceptance test protocols.
     NHTSA has increased the stringency of the eye glance-
related acceptance test criteria to correct a statistics error made
during development of the Alliance Guidelines. (This is discussed in
detail later in this notice.) For the Eye Glance Measurement on a
Driving Simulator acceptance test protocol, the maximum acceptable
total eyes-off-road time (TEORT) has been reduced from 20 seconds to 12
seconds and a second criterion limiting long eye glances away from the
road has been added. For the Occlusion acceptance test protocol, the
Total Shutter Open Time (TSOT) has been reduced from 15 seconds to 12
seconds. Therefore, tasks that meet the Alliance Guidelines Principle
2.1 Alternative A acceptance criteria (based on eye glances) may not
meet the acceptance criteria contained in the NHTSA Guidelines.
    Despite these more stringent aspects, NHTSA believes that vehicles
currently meeting the Alliance Guidelines should meet or be close to
meeting all of the recommendations of the NHTSA Guidelines. However, we
do understand that the differences and increased stringency of the
NHTSA Guidelines may lead some manufacturers to engage in additional
design work. As discussed below in Section IV.B.4, NHTSA believes that
manufacturers choosing to implement these NHTSA Guidelines for existing
vehicle models would likely make any needed changes to meet these
Guidelines when a vehicle model undergoes a major revision, thus
minimizing the need to redesign existing designs and allow
incorporation of any necessary research and/or conformance testing into
the normal vehicle production cycle. Accordingly, we do not expect
manufacturers to incur significant additional redesign costs to conform
to the NHTSA Guidelines because any necessary changes would be made
during the normal vehicle production cycle.
    Based on comments from vehicle manufacturers, we believe that a
substantial portion of the industry's concerns about the costs of
meeting the NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines are based either on
parts of the Guidelines where NHTSA did not clearly express what it
recommended or on industry misunderstandings of what NHTSA meant. NHTSA
has worked to improve the clarity of the NHTSA Driver Distraction
Guidelines being issued with this notice.
10. Concerns About the NHTSA Guidelines Preventing ``911'' Emergency
Calls
a. Summary of Comments
    Several individual commenters expressed concern that the
recommendations of the NHTSA Guidelines might prevent drivers from
making emergency phone calls to ``911'' while driving.
b. NHTSA's Response
    The recommendations of the Phase 1 NHTSA Guidelines should have no
impact on the driver's ability to place an emergency call to ``911''
while driving.
    Based on the recommended definition of ``task'' contained in the
NHTSA Guidelines, making an emergency call to ``911'' comprises the
following three tasks:
     Activating/opening a phone (the Phase 1 Guidelines only
cover one that is built-in to the vehicle), dialing ``911,'' and
pressing the ``Send'' or ``Talk'' button. NHTSA research \81\ has found
that drivers can activate/open a phone, dial up to seven digits, and
press the ``Send'' or ``Talk'' button before exceeding the task
acceptance criteria of the NHTSA Guidelines. Since dialing ``911'' only
requires three digits to be dialed, this task can be accomplished by
drivers while driving under these Guideline recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

impacting front seat passengers. Quoting from the NHTSA Guidelines:

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

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

Issues Specific to the NHTSA Guidelines Stated Purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    \88\ Ibid, p. 18.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    \90\ Ibid, p. 11.

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

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

    \91\ Ibid, p. 12.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    \94\ Ibid.

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

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

    \95\ Ibid.

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

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

    \96\ Ibid.

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

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

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

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

    \98\ Ibid, p. 10.

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

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

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

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

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

C. Issues Relating to the NHTSA Guidelines Scope

1. Inclusion of Conventional Electronic Devices and Heating,
Ventilation, and Air Conditioning in Scope of the NHTSA Guidelines
a. Summary of Comments
    Multiple commenters questioned the addition of conventional
electronic devices to the scope of NHTSA Guidelines and stated that the
inclusion of these devices is not supported by crash data.
    The Alliance Guidelines do not apply to conventional information or
communications systems. They list conventional information and
communications systems as:

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

    \100\ P. 11, ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    \104\ Wang, J.S., Knipling, R.R., and Goodman, M.J., ``The Role
of Driver Inattention in Crashes: New Statistics from the 1995
Crashworthiness Data System,'' 40th Annual proceedings, Association
for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada, October 1996.
    \105\ NASS CDS, like NASS GES, contains data from a nationally-
representative sample of police-reported crashes. It contains data
on police-reported crashes of all levels of severity, including
those that result in fatalities, injuries, or only property damage.
National numbers of crashes calculated from NASS CDS are estimates.
Unlike NASS GES, in 1995 NASS CDS had a variable that indicated
whether a driver was distracted and the cause of that distraction
(if present).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    \115\ Ibid.

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

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

    \116\ Ibid. p. 2.

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

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

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

    \118\ Ibid. p. 2.

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

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

    \119\ Ibid. p. 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Definition of Driving and Lock Out Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    \124\ P. 22, ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Per Se Lock Out Issues

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

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

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

JAMA 30 Character Limits Were Inappropriately Applied to English
Characters

    The agency states that it based ``the 30 character limit in the
NHTSA Guidelines on the amount of text that may be read comes from