11200 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0053] 

Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver 

Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle 

Electronic Devices 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed Federal 

guidelines. 

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) is 

concerned about the effects of 

distraction due to drivers’ use of 

electronic devices on motor vehicle 

safety. Consequently, NHTSA is issuing 

nonbinding, voluntary NHTSA Driver 

Distraction Guidelines (NHTSA 

Guidelines) to promote safety by 

discouraging the introduction of 

excessively distracting devices in 

vehicles. 

This notice details the contents of the 

first phase of the NHTSA Driver 

Distraction Guidelines. These NHTSA 

Guidelines cover original equipment invehicle device secondary tasks 

(communications, entertainment, 

information gathering, and navigation 

tasks not required to drive are 

considered secondary tasks) performed 

by the driver through visual-manual 

means (meaning the driver looking at a 

device, manipulating a device-related 

control with the driver’s hand, and 

watching for visual feedback). 

The proposed NHTSA Guidelines list 

certain secondary, non-driving related 

tasks that, based on NHTSA’s research, 

are believed by the agency to interfere 

inherently with a driver’s ability to 

safely control the vehicle. The 

Guidelines recommend that those invehicle devices be designed so that they 

cannot be used by the driver to perform 

such tasks while the driver is driving. 

For all other secondary, non-drivingrelated visual-manual tasks, the NHTSA 

Guidelines specify a test method for 

measuring the impact of task 

performance on driving safety while 

driving and time-based acceptance 

criteria for assessing whether a task 

interferes too much with driver 

attention to be suitable to perform while 

driving. If a task does not meet the 

acceptance criteria, the NHTSA 

Guidelines recommend that in-vehicle 

devices be designed so that the task 

cannot be performed by the driver while 

driving. In addition to identifying 

inherently distracting tasks and 

providing a means for measuring and 

evaluating the level of distraction 

associated with other non-drivingrelated tasks, the NHTSA Guidelines 

contain several design 

recommendations for in-vehicle devices 

in order to minimize their potential for 

distraction. 

NHTSA seeks comments on these 

NHTSA Guidelines and any suggestions 

for how to improve them so as to better 

enhance motor vehicle safety. 

DATES: Comments: You should submit 

your comments early enough to ensure 

that the docket receives them not later 

than April 24, 2012. 

Public Meetings: NHTSA will hold 

public meetings in March 2012 in three 

locations: Washington, DC; Los Angeles, 

California; and Chicago, Illinois. 

NHTSA will announce the exact dates 

and locations for each meeting in a 

supplemental Federal Register Notice. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments, see the Public 

Participation heading of the 

Supplementary Information section of 

this document. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Please see the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ heading 

below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

DocketInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, you may contact Dr. W. 

Riley Garrott, Vehicle Research and Test 

Center, telephone: (937) 666–3312, 

facsimile: (937) 666–3590. You may 

send mail to this person at: The 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Vehicle Research and 

Test Center, P.O. Box B–37, East Liberty, 

OH 43319. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These 

proposed NHTSA Guidelines will lead 

to issuance of final NHTSA Guidelines, 

which will not have the force and effect 

of law and will not be regulations. 

Therefore, NHTSA is not required to 

provide notice and an opportunity for 

comment. NHTSA is doing so, however, 

to ensure that its final NHTSA 

Guidelines benefit from the input of all 

knowledgeable and interested persons. 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. The Problem of Driver Distraction and 

Related Research 

B. NHTSA Driver Distraction Program 

C. Today’s Proposal 

II. Background 

A. Acronyms Used in Document 

B. The Driver Distraction Safety Problem 

i. Estimation of Distraction Crash Risk Via 

Naturalistic Driving Studies 

ii. Summary of Naturalistic Driving Study 

Distraction Risk Analyses 

C. NHTSA’s Driver Distraction Program 

III. Why distraction guidelines? 

IV. NHTSA Research To Develop Driver 

Distraction Metrics and Measurement 

Methods 

A. Timeline of NHTSA Driver Distraction 

Measurement Research 

B. ‘‘15-Second Rule’’ Study 

C. Collision Avoidance Metrics Partnership 

(CAMP) Driver Workload Metrics Project 

D. Measuring Distraction Potential of 

Operating In-Vehicle Devices 

E. Developing a Test To Measure 

Distraction Potential of In-Vehicle 

Information System Tasks in Production 

Vehicles 

F. Distraction Effects of Manual Number 

and Text Entry While Driving 

G. Principal Findings of NHTSA Driver 

Distraction Metric Research 

V. Driver Distraction Prevention and 

Reduction Guidelines 

A. Currently Existing Driver Distraction 

Guidelines 

B. Why NHTSA Is Issuing Its Own 

Guidelines for Limiting and Reducing 

Driver Distraction 

C. First Phase of NHTSA’s Driver 

Distraction Guidelines Focuses on 

Original Equipment Devices with VisualManual Driver Interfaces 

D. Past NHTSA Actions on Driver 

Distraction 

E. Challenges Relating to the Development 

of Interface Guidelines to Minimize 

Driver Distraction 

VI. Justification for Specific Portions of 

NHTSA Guidelines for Reducing Driver 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11201 

1 ‘‘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. 

2 Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, 

‘‘Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification 

Procedures on Driver-Interactions with Advanced 

Continued 

Distraction During Interactions With InVehicle Systems 

A. Intended Vehicle Types 

B. Existing Alliance Guidelines Provide a 

Starting Point 

C. International Harmonization and 

Voluntary Consensus Standards 

D. Statement of General Responsibilities 

E. Scope—Devices for Which the NHTSA 

Guidelines Are Appropriate 

F. Definition of a Task 

G. Definition of Lock Out 

H. Per Se Lock Outs 

I. Steering Wheel-Mounted Control 

Restrictions 

J. Maximum Downward Viewing Angle 

K. Tests Considered To Determine What 

Tasks Should Be Accessible While 

Driving 

L. NHTSA’s Preferred Tests for 

Determining What Tasks Should Be 

Accessible While Driving 

M. Eye Glance Acceptance Criteria 

i. Selection of Manual Radio Tuning as the 

Reference Task 

ii. The Alliance Guidelines Acceptance 

Criteria 

iii. Recent NHTSA Research on Manual 

Radio Tuning 

iv. Development of NHTSA’s Eye Glance 

Acceptance Criteria 

N. Human Subject Selection for Guideline 

Testing 

O. Occlusion Test Protocol 

P. Task Performance Errors During Testing 

Q. Limited NHTSA Guidelines for 

Passenger Operated Equipment 

VII. Implementation Considerations for the 

NHTSA Guidelines 

A. Current Vehicles That Meet the NHTSA 

Guidelines 

B. Expected Effects of the NHTSA 

Guidelines 

C. NHTSA Monitoring to Determine 

Whether Vehicles Meet Guideline 

Recommendations 

VIII. Public Participation 

IX. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

X. Guidelines for Reducing Visual-Manual 

Driver Distraction During Interactions 

with In-Vehicle Devices 

I. Executive Summary 

A. The Problem of Driver Distraction 

and Related Research 

The term ‘‘distraction,’’ as used in 

connection with these guidelines, is a 

specific type of inattention that occurs 

when drivers divert their attention away 

from the driving task to focus on 

another activity. These distractions can 

be from electronic devices, such as 

navigation systems and cell phones, or 

more conventional distractions such as 

interacting with passengers and eating. 

These distracting tasks can affect drivers 

in different ways, and can be 

categorized into the following types: 

• Visual distraction: Tasks that 

require the driver to look away from the 

roadway to visually obtain information; 

• Manual distraction: Tasks that 

require the driver to take a hand off the 

steering wheel and manipulate a device; 

• Cognitive distraction: Tasks that 

require the driver to avert their mental 

attention away from the driving task. 

The impact of distraction on driving 

is determined not just by the type of 

distraction, but also the frequency and 

duration of the task. That is to say, even 

if a task is less distracting, a driver who 

engages in it frequently or for long 

durations may increase the crash risk to 

a level comparable to that of much more 

difficult task performed less often. 

NHTSA is concerned about the effects 

of driver distraction on motor vehicle 

safety. Crash data show that 17 percent 

(an estimated 899,000) of all policereported crashes reportedly involved 

some type of driver distraction in 2010. 

Of those 899,000 crashes, distraction by 

a device/control integral to the vehicle 

was reported in 26,000 crashes (3% of 

the distraction-related police-reported 

crashes). 

For a number of years, NHTSA has 

been conducting research to better 

understand how driver distraction 

impacts driving performance and safety. 

The research has involved both 

integrated and portable devices, various 

task types, and both visual-manual and 

auditory-vocal tasks (i.e., tasks that use 

voice inputs and provide auditory 

feedback). Additionally, both NHTSA 

and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA) have 

sponsored analyses focused on 

distracted driving using data from 

naturalistic driving studies performed 

by the Virginia Tech Transportation 

Institute (VTTI). 

The automobile industry, Europe, and 

Japan have all conducted valuable 

research that has increased the available 

knowledge regarding driver distraction 

and its effects on safety. The results of 

this work are summarized in various 

sets of guidelines that minimize the 

potential for driver distraction during 

visual-manual interactions while the 

vehicle is in motion. NHTSA has drawn 

heavily upon these existing guidelines 

in the development of its Driver 

Distraction Guidelines. 

B. NHTSA Driver Distraction Program 

In April 2010, NHTSA released an 

‘‘Overview of the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration’s Driver 

Distraction Program,’’ 1 which 

summarized steps that NHTSA intends 

to take to reduce crashes attributable to 

driver distraction. One part of this 

program is the development of 

nonbinding, voluntary guidelines for 

minimizing the distraction potential of 

in-vehicle and portable devices. The 

guidelines will be developed in three 

phases. The first phase will explore 

visual-manual interfaces of devices 

installed in vehicles. The second phase 

will include portable and aftermarket 

devices. The third phase will expand 

the guidelines to include auditory-vocal 

interfaces. 

C. Today’s Proposal 

This notice proposes the first phase of 

these NHTSA Driver Distraction 

Guidelines, which cover certain devices 

installed in vehicles as original 

equipment that are operated by the 

driver through visual-manual means 

(meaning the driver looking at a device, 

manipulating a device-related control 

with the driver’s hand, and watching for 

visual feedback from the device). The 

driver distraction research discussed 

above shows that the types of tasks 

correlated with the highest crash/near 

crash risk odds ratios tend to have 

primarily visual-manual means of 

interaction, and, accordingly, this first 

phase of guidelines focuses on visualmanual interfaces. 

The purpose of the NHTSA 

Guidelines is to limit potential driver 

distraction associated with secondary, 

non-driving-related, visual-manual tasks 

(e.g., information, navigation, 

communications, and entertainment) 

performed using integrated electronic 

devices. The NHTSA Guidelines are not 

appropriate for conventional controls 

and displays (e.g., heating-ventilationair conditions controls, instrument 

gauges or telltales) because operating 

these systems is part of the primary 

driving task. Likewise, the NHTSA 

Guidelines are not appropriate for 

collision warning or vehicle control 

systems, which are designed to aid the 

driver in controlling the vehicle and 

avoid crashes. These systems are meant 

to capture the driver’s attention. 

To facilitate the development of 

guidelines, NHTSA studied the various 

existing guidelines relating to driver 

distraction prevention and reduction 

and found the ‘‘Statement of Principles, 

Criteria and Verification Procedures on 

Driver-Interactions with Advanced InVehicle Information and 

Communication Systems’’ developed by 

the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers (Alliance Guidelines 2) to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11202 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

In-Vehicle Information and Communication 

Systems,’’ June 26, 2006 version, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, Washington, DC. 

be the most complete and up-to-date. 

The Alliance Guidelines provided 

valuable input in current NHTSA efforts 

to address driver distraction issues. 

While NHTSA drew heavily on that 

input in developing the NHTSA 

Guidelines, it did incorporate a number 

of changes in an effort to further 

enhance driving safety, enhance 

guideline usability, improve 

implementation consistency, and 

incorporate the latest driver distraction 

research findings. 

Since light vehicles comprise the vast 

majority of the vehicle fleet, NHTSA 

focused its distraction research on this 

type of vehicle, instead of heavy trucks, 

medium trucks, motorcoaches, or 

motorcycles. Therefore, the NHTSA 

Guidelines contained in this notice 

cover light vehicles, i.e., all passenger 

cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

and trucks and buses with a Gross 

Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of not 

more than 10,000 pounds. While much 

of what NHTSA has learned about light 

vehicle driver distraction undoubtedly 

applies to other vehicle types, 

additional research would be desirable 

to assess whether all aspects of these 

NHTSA Guidelines are appropriate for 

those vehicle types. 

The NHTSA Guidelines limit 

potential driver distraction associated 

with non-driving-related, visual-manual 

tasks through several approaches: 

1. The NHTSA Guidelines list certain 

secondary, non-driving-related tasks 

that, based on NHTSA’s research, are 

believed by the agency to interfere 

inherently with a driver’s ability to 

safely control the vehicle. The 

Guidelines recommend that those invehicle devices be designed so that they 

cannot be used by the driver to perform 

such tasks while the driver is driving. 

The list of tasks considered to 

inherently interfere with a driver’s 

ability to safely operate the vehicle 

include: displaying images or video not 

related to driving; displaying 

automatically scrolling text; requiring 

manual text entry of more than six 

button or key presses during a single 

task; or requiring reading more than 30 

characters of text (not counting 

punctuation marks). The NHTSA 

Guidelines specify that this 

recommendation is intended to prevent 

the driver from engaging in tasks such 

as watching video footage, visualmanual text messaging, visual-manual 

internet browsing, or visual-manual 

social media browsing while driving. 

The recommendation is not intended to 

prevent the display of images related to 

driving, such as images related to the 

status of vehicle occupants or vehicle 

maneuvering or images depicting the 

rearview or blind zone areas of a 

vehicle. 

2. For all other secondary, nondriving-related visual-manual tasks, the 

NHTSA Guidelines specify a test 

method for measuring the impact of 

performing a task on driving safety and 

time-based acceptance criteria for 

assessing whether a task interferes too 

much with driver attention to be 

suitable to perform while driving. If a 

task does not meet the acceptance 

criteria, the NHTSA Guidelines 

recommend that in-vehicle devices be 

designed so that the task cannot be 

performed by the driver while driving. 

More specifically, the NHTSA 

Guidelines include two test methods for 

assessing whether a task interferes too 

much with driver attention. One test 

method measures the amount of time 

that the driver’s eyes are drawn away 

from the roadway during the 

performance of the task. The research 

mentioned above shows that long 

glances by the driver away from the 

roadway are correlated with an 

increased risk of a crash or near-crash. 

The NHTSA Guidelines recommend 

that devices be designed so that tasks 

can be completed by the driver while 

driving with glances away from the 

roadway of 2 seconds or less and a 

cumulative time spent glancing away 

from the roadway of 12 seconds or less. 

The second test method uses a visual 

occlusion technique to ensure that a 

driver can complete a task in a series of 

1.5 second glances with a cumulative 

time spent glancing away from the 

roadway of not more than 9 seconds. 

3. In addition to identifying 

inherently distracting tasks and 

providing a means for measuring and 

evaluating the level of distraction 

associated with other non-drivingrelated tasks, the NHTSA Guidelines 

contain several design 

recommendations for in-vehicle devices 

in order to minimize their potential for 

distraction. The NHTSA Guidelines 

recommend that all device functions 

designed to be performed by the driver 

through visual-manual means should 

require no more than one of the driver’s 

hands to operate. The NHTSA 

Guidelines further recommend that each 

device’s active display should be 

located as close as practicable to the 

driver’s forward line of sight and 

include a specific recommendation for 

the maximum downward viewing angle 

to the geometric center of each display. 

The agency believes that the NHTSA 

Guidelines are appropriate for any 

device that the driver can easily see 

and/or reach (even if it is intended for 

use solely by passengers), and, 

accordingly, any task that is associated 

with an unacceptable level of 

distraction should be made inaccessible 

to the driver while driving. However, 

the NHTSA Guidelines are not 

appropriate for any device that is 

located fully behind the front seat of the 

vehicle or for any front-seat device that 

cannot reasonably be reached or seen by 

the driver. 

NHTSA has opted to pursue 

nonbinding, voluntary guidelines rather 

than a mandatory Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) for three 

principal reasons. First, this is an area 

in which learning continues, and 

NHTSA believes that, at this time, 

continued research is both necessary 

and important. Second, technology is 

changing rapidly, and a static rule, put 

in place at this time, may face 

unforeseen problems and issues as new 

technologies are developed and 

introduced. Third, available data are not 

sufficient at this time to permit accurate 

estimation of the benefits and costs of a 

mandatory rule in this area. NHTSA’s 

firm belief that there are safety benefits 

to be gained by limiting and reducing 

driver distraction due to integrated 

electronic devices is sufficient reason 

for issuing the NHTSA Guidelines, but 

in order to issue a rule, we need a 

defensible estimate of the magnitude of 

such benefits and the corresponding 

costs. (See Executive Order 13563.) 

Since these voluntary NHTSA 

Guidelines are not a FMVSS, NHTSA’s 

normal enforcement procedures are not 

applicable. As part of its continuing 

research effort, NHTSA does intend to 

monitor manufacturers’ voluntary 

adoption of these NHTSA Guidelines to 

help determine their effectiveness and 

sufficiency. 

The main effect that NHTSA expects 

to achieve through its NHTSA 

Guidelines is better-designed in-vehicle 

integrated electronic device interfaces 

that do not exceed a reasonable level of 

complexity for visual-manual secondary 

tasks. While voluntary and nonbinding, 

the NHTSA Guidelines are meant to 

discourage the introduction of 

egregiously distracting non-driving tasks 

performed using integrated devices (i.e., 

those that the NHTSA Guidelines list as 

being inherently distracting and those 

that do not meet the acceptance criteria 

when tested under the test method 

contained in the Guidelines). 

NHTSA seeks comments as to how to 

improve the NHTSA Guidelines so as to 

improve motor vehicle safety. Because 

these Guidelines are voluntary and 

nonbinding, they will not require action 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11203 

3FARS is a census of all fatal crashes that occur 

on the roadways of the United States of America. 

It contains data on all fatal crashes occurring in all 

50 states as well as the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico. 

4NASS GES contains data from a nationallyrepresentative sample of police-reported crashes. It 

contains data on police-reported crashes of all 

levels of severity, including those that result in 

fatalities, injuries, or only property damage. 

National numbers of crashes calculated from NASS 

GES are estimates. 

of any kind, and for that reason they 

will not confer benefits or impose costs. 

Nonetheless, and as part of its 

continuing research efforts, NHTSA 

welcomes comments on the potential 

benefits and costs that would result 

from voluntary compliance with the 

draft Guidelines. 

NHTSA will review submitted 

comments and plans to issue a final 

version of the visual-manual portion of 

its NHTSA Guidelines in the form of a 

Federal Register notice during the first 

half of calendar year 2012. 

II. Background 

A. Acronyms Used in Document 

ADAM Advanced Driver Attention Metrics 

AM Amplitude Modulation 

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

CAMP Collision Avoidance Metrics 

Partnership 

CANbus Controller Area Network bus 

CD Compact Disc 

CDS Crashworthiness Data System (NASS– 

CDS) 

DFD Dynamic Following and Detection 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EOT Enhanced Occlusion Technique 

EORT Eyes-Off-Road Time 

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

FM Frequency Modulation 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard 

FR Federal Register 

GES General Estimates System (NASS–GES) 

GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 

HMI Human-Machine Interface 

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air 

Conditioning 

ISO International Standards Organization 

ISOES International Society for 

Occupational Ergonomics and Safety 

IVIS In-Vehicle Information Systems 

JAMA Japanese Automobile Manufacturers 

Association 

LCT Lane Change Task 

MGD Mean Glance Duration 

MNTE Manual Number and Text Entry 

NASS National Automotive Sampling 

System 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

NMVCCS National Motor Vehicle Crash 

Causation Survey 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OE Original Equipment 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PAR Police Accident Report 

PDT Peripheral Detection Task 

R Task Resumability Ratio 

SAE SAE International 

SDLP Standard Deviation of Lane Position 

(lane position variability) 

SHRP2 Strategic Highway Research 

Program 2 

STI Systems Technology Incorporated 

STISIM Systems Technology Incorporated 

Driving Simulator 

TEORT Total Eyes-Off-Road Time 

TGT Total Glance Time to Task 

VTTI Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 

B. The Driver Distraction Safety Problem 

There has been a large amount of 

research performed on the topic of 

driver distraction and its impact on 

safety. Research noted here will provide 

a brief overview of the distraction safety 

problem. Many other reports and papers 

have been published on various aspects 

of driver distraction. Some of these 

additional reports and papers may be 

found at www.distraction.gov. 

NHTSA data on distracted drivingrelated crashes and the resulting 

numbers of injured people and fatalities 

is derived from the Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS) 3 and the 

National Automotive Sampling System 

(NASS) General Estimates System 

(GES).4

The most recent data available, 2010 

data, show that 17 percent of all policereported crashes (fatal, injury-only and 

property-damage-only) involve reports 

of distracted driving. As can be seen in 

Table 1, the percent of all policereported crashes that involve distraction 

has remained consistent over the past 

five years. These distraction-related 

crashes lead to thousands of fatalities 

and over 400,000 injured people each 

year, on average. 

An estimated 899,000 of all policereported crashes involved a report of a 

distracted driver in 2010. Of those 

899,000 crashes, 26,000 (3%) 

specifically stated that the driver was 

distracted when he was adjusting or 

using an integrated device/control. 

From a different viewpoint, of those 

899,000 crashes, 47,000 (5%) 

specifically stated that the driver was 

distracted by a cell phone (no 

differentiation between portable and 

integrated). It should be noted that these 

two classifications are not mutually 

exclusive, as a driver who was 

distracted by the radio control may have 

also been on the phone at the time of the 

crash and thus the crash may appear in 

both categories. While all electronic 

devices are of interest, the current 

coding does not separate other 

electronic devices other than cell 

phones. 

TABLE 1—POLICE–REPORTED CRASHES AND CRASHES INVOLVING DISTRACTION, 2006–2010 (GES) 

Year Number of policereported crashes 

Police-reported 

crashes involving 

a distracted driver 

Distraction-related 

crashes involving 

an integrated control/device *

Distraction-related 

crashes involving 

an electronic device *

2006 ......................................................................................... 5,964,000 1,019,000 (17%) 18,000 (2%) 24,000 (2%) 

2007 ......................................................................................... 6,016,000 1,001,000 (17%) 23,000 (2%) 48,000 (5%) 

2008 ......................................................................................... 5,801,000 967,000 (17%) 21,000 (2%) 48,000 (5%) 

2009 ......................................................................................... 5,498,000 957,000 (17%) 22,000 (2%) 46,000 (5%) 

2010 ......................................................................................... 5,409,000 899,000 (17%) 26,000 (3%) 47,000 (5%) 

*The categories for Integrated Control/Device and Electronic Device are not mutually exclusive. Therefore the data cannot be added or combined in any manner. 

Identification of specific driveractivities and driver-behavior that 

serves as the distraction has presented 

challenges, both within NHTSA’s data 

collection and on police accident 

reports. Therefore, a large portion of the 

crashes that are reported to involve 

distraction do not have a specific 

behavior or activity listed; rather they 

specify other distraction or distraction 

unknown. One could assume that some 

portion of those crashes involve an 

electronic device, either portable or 

integrated. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11204 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

5Since this is a re-coding of state records into a 

uniform data set, and does not make contact with 

any specific subjects, no OMB clearance is required 

for these revisions. 

6Neale, V.L., Dingus, T.A., Klauer, S.G., 

Sudweeks, J., and Goodman, M., ‘‘An Overview of 

the 100-Car Naturalistic Study and Findings,’’ ESV 

Paper 05–0400, June 2005. 

7 Dingus, T.A., Klauer, S.G., Neale, V.L., Petersen, 

A., Lee, S.E., Sudweeks, J., Perez, M.A., Hankey, J., 

Ramsey, D., Gupta, S., Bucher, C., Doerzaph, Z.R., 

Jermeland, J., and Knipling, R.R., ‘‘The 100-Car 

Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II—Results of the 

100-Car Field Experiment,’’ DOT HS 810 593, April 

2006. 

8 Klauer, S.G., Dingus, T.A., Neale, V.L., 

Sudweeks, J.D., and Ramsey, D.J., ‘‘The Impact of 

Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An 

Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving 

Study Data,’’ DOT HS 810 594, April 2006. 

9 Guo, F., Klauer, S.G., McGill, M.T., and Dingus, 

T.A., ‘‘Task 3—Evaluating the Relationship 

Between Near-Crashes and Crashes: Can NearCrashes Serve as a Surrogate Safety Metric for 

Crashes?,’’ DOT HS 811 382, September 2010. 

10 Klauer, S.G., Guo, F., Sudweeks, J.D., and 

Dingus, T.A., ‘‘An Analysis of Driver Inattention 

Using a Case-Crossover Approach On 100-Car Data: 

Final Report,’’ DOT HS 811 334, May 2010. 

11Neale, V.L., Dingus, T.A., Klauer, S.G., 

Sudweeks, J., and Goodman, M., ‘‘An Overview of 

the 100-Car Naturalistic Study and Findings,’’ ESV 

Paper 05–0400, June 2005. 

12Olson, R.L., Hanowski, R.J., Hickman, J.S., and 

Bocanegra, J., ‘‘Driver Distraction in Commercial 

Vehicle Operations,’’ FMCSA–RRR–09–042, 

September 2009. 

13Hanowski, R.J., Blanco, M., Nakata, A., 

Hickman, J.S., Schaudt, W.A., Fumero, M.C., Olson, 

R.L., Jermeland, J., Greening, M., Holbrook, G.T., 

Knipling, R.R., and Madison, P., ‘‘The Drowsy 

Driver Warning System Field Operational Test, Data 

Collection Methods,’’ DOT HS 811 035, September 

2008. 

14Blanco, M., Hickman, J.S., Olson, R.L., 

Bocanegra, J.L., Hanowski, R.J., Nakata, A., 

Greening, M., Madison, P., Holbrook, G.T., and 

Bowman, D., ‘‘Investigating Critical Incidents, 

Driver Restart Period, Sleep Quantity, and Crash 

Countermeasures in Commercial Vehicle 

Operations Using Naturalistic Data Collection,’’ in 

press, 2008. 

NHTSA is making substantial data 

collection revisions to FARS and 

working on revisions to Model 

Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 

(MMUCC) to better capture and classify 

the crashes related to distraction.5 One 

such improvement is the ability to 

separate the involvement of integrated 

vehicle equipment as the distraction in 

fatal crashes in FARS. With this 

improvement, NHTSA looks to track the 

involvement of integrated devices over 

time in fatal crashes. As manufacturers 

are increasingly developing 

communications systems that can 

integrate portable devices into the 

vehicle or developing fully-integrated 

systems in the vehicle, this tracking of 

data will be essential in monitoring 

distraction involvement in fatal crashes. 

i. Estimation of Distraction Crash Risk 

Via Naturalistic Driving Studies 

One approach to estimating the 

driving risks due to various types of 

distraction is naturalistic driving 

studies. Naturalistic data collection is 

an excellent method of determining 

distraction risks because test 

participants (drivers) volunteer to drive 

an instrumented vehicle in the same 

manner that they normally do for some 

period of time. Unlike commanded task 

testing, in which an in-vehicle 

experimenter instructs a test participant 

when to perform a task, in naturalistic 

studies test participants perform tasks at 

will. The unobtrusive data recording 

instrumentation installed in the vehicle 

eliminates the distraction underreporting problem seen in police 

accident reports by recording data that 

describes what test participants are 

doing at any time while driving. 

For light vehicles, the NHTSAsponsored 100-Car Naturalistic Driving 

Study,6 7 8 9 10 performed by the Virginia 

Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI), 

provides information about the effects of 

performing various types of secondary 

tasks on crash/near crash risks. 

Secondary tasks include 

communications, entertainment, 

informational, interactions with 

passengers, navigation, and reaching for 

objects tasks (along with many others) 

that are not required for driving. For the 

100-Car Study, VTTI collected 

naturalistic driving data for 100 vehicles 

from January 2003 through July 2004. 

Each participant’s vehicle was 

unobtrusively fitted with five video 

cameras, sensors that measured 

numerous vehicle state and kinematic 

variables at each instant of time, and 

data acquisition. The vehicles were then 

driven by their owners during their 

normal daily activities for 12 to 13 

months while data were recorded. No 

special instructions were given to 

drivers as to when or where to drive and 

no experimenter was present in the 

vehicle during the driving. All of this 

resulted in a large data set of naturalistic 

driving data that contains information 

on 241 drivers (100 primary drivers who 

performed most of the driving and 141 

secondary drivers who drove the 

instrumented vehicles for shorter 

periods of time) driving for almost 

43,000 hours and traveling 

approximately 2 million miles. 

Data from the 100-Car Naturalistic 

Driving Study provides the best 

information currently available about 

the risks associated with performing a 

variety of secondary tasks while driving 

light vehicles (vehicles under 10,000 

pounds GVWR). However, even though 

this was a large, difficult, and expensive 

study to perform, from an 

epidemiological viewpoint, the study 

was small (100 primary drivers, 15 

police-reported and 82 total crashes, 

including minor collisions). Drivers 

from only one small portion of the 

country, the Northern VirginiaWashington, DC, metro area, were 

represented. 

The 100-Car Study was deliberately 

designed to maximize the number of 

crash and near-crash events through the 

selection of subjects with higher than 

average crash- or near-crash risk 

exposure.11 This was accomplished 

through the selection of a larger sample 

of drivers below the age of 25, and by 

the inclusion of a sample that drove 

more than the average number of miles. 

Due to the rapid pace of technological 

change, some devices (e.g., smart 

phones) and secondary tasks of great 

current interest (e.g., text messaging) 

were not addressed by 100-Car Study 

data because they were not widely in 

use at the time. 

Subsequent to the 100-Car 

Naturalistic Driving Study, the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA) sponsored an analysis of 

naturalistic driving data 12 to examine 

the effects of driver distraction on safety 

for commercial motor vehicles (three or 

more axle trucks, tractors-semitrailers 

(including tankers), transit buses, and 

motor coaches). This analysis used data 

collected during two commercial motor 

vehicle naturalistic driving studies. 

Since the data analyzed was collected 

during two studies, this study will, 

hereinafter, be referred to as the ‘‘Two 

Study FMCSA Analyses.’’ 

The Two Study FMCSA Analyses 

combined and analyzed data from two 

large-scale commercial motor vehicle 

naturalistic driving studies: the Drowsy 

Driver Warning System Field 

Operational Test 13 and the Naturalistic 

Truck Driving Study.14 The combined 

database contains naturalistic driving 

data for 203 commercial motor vehicle 

drivers, 7 trucking fleets, 16 fleet 

locations, and approximately 3 million 

miles of continuously-collected 

kinematic and video data. This data set 

was filtered using kinematic data 

thresholds, along with video review and 

validation, to find safety-critical events 

(defined in this report as crashes, nearcrashes, crash-relevant conflicts, and 

unintentional lane deviations). There 

were a total of 4,452 safety-critical 

events in the database: 21 crashes, 197 

near-crashes, 3,019 crash-relevant 

conflicts, and 1,215 unintentional lane 

deviations. In addition, 19,888 time 

segments of baseline driving data were 

randomly selected for analysis. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11205 

One major source of differences in the 

results obtained from analyses of the 

100-Car Study with those obtained from 

the Two Study FMCSA Analyses is the 

different time frames in which their data 

collections were performed. The 100- 

Car Naturalistic Driving Study data 

collection was from January 2003 

through July 2004. The Drowsy Driver 

Warning System Field Operational Test 

collected data from May 2004 through 

September 2005 and the Naturalistic 

Truck Driving Study collected data from 

November 2005 through May 2007. Due 

to the current rapid changes occurring 

in portable and other consumer 

electronics, the specific types of 

electronic device related distraction 

observed across studies, while similar, 

were not identical. For example, while 

the Two Study FMCSA Analyses found 

a high safety critical event risk due to 

drivers engaging in text messaging, there 

was no text messaging observed during 

the 100-Car Study. This is because the 

widespread popularity of text messaging 

did not occur until after the 100-Car 

Study data collection was completed. 

ii. Summary of Naturalistic Driving 

Study Distraction Risk Analyses 

Figure 1 gives a graphical 

representation of some of the secondary 

task risk odds ratios determined by the 

100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study and 

the Two Study FMCSA Analyses. In this 

figure, a risk odds ratio of 1.00 (shown 

as ‘‘1’’ in the figure) equates to the risks 

associated with baseline driving. Risk 

odds ratios above 1.00 indicate 

secondary tasks that increase driving 

risks while risk odds ratios below 1.00 

indicate protective effects (i.e., 

performing these secondary tasks makes 

a crash or near-crash event less likely to 

occur than driving and not performing 

any secondary task.) This figure 

provides a quick, visual, summary of the 

risks associated with performing a 

variety of secondary tasks while driving 

both light and heavy vehicles. 

In summary, the various naturalistic 

data study analyses established several 

important things about driver 

distraction which are directly relevant 

to the NHTSA Guidelines for reducing 

driver distraction due to device 

interface design: 

• Secondary task performance is very 

common while driving. They were 

observed during the majority (54%) of 

the randomly selected baseline time 

segments analyzed during the 100-Car 

Study analyses. Some secondary task 

performance involves the use of 

electronic devices; these secondary 

tasks are the primary focus of this 

document. 

• Secondary task performance while 

driving has a broad range of risk odds 

ratios associated with different 

secondary tasks. The observed risk odds 

ratios range from 23.2, indicating a very 

large increase in crash/near-crash risk (a 

risk ratio of 1.0 means that a secondary 

task has the same risk as average 

driving; a risk ratio of 23.2 means that 

risk associated with performance of this 

secondary task is increased by 2,220 

percent compared to average driving), to 

0.4 (any value less than 1.0 indicates a 

situation with less risk than average 

driving indicating a protective effect; a 

risk ratio of 0.4 means that risk 

associated with performance of this 

secondary task is reduced by 60 percent 

compared to average driving). This 

indicates that it may well be possible to 

improve at least some of the secondary 

tasks with high risk odds ratios (i.e., 

risky tasks) so as to make them 

substantially safer to perform. The 

logical place to reduce crash/near-crash 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2EN24FE12.057</GPH>
11206 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

15 Information on NHTSA’s efforts to address this 

problem can be found at http:// 

www.distraction.gov/. 

16 ‘‘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. 17 Ibid, P. 21. 

18Navigation tasks clearly have to be performed 

to drive. However, such tasks as destination entry 

do not have to be performed while driving but can 

instead be performed while the vehicle is 

stationary. 

risk odds ratios for these secondary 

tasks is through improvements to their 

driver interface. 

• It is clear from naturalistic driving 

research that the secondary tasks with 

the highest risk odds ratios tend to have 

primarily visual-manual interaction 

means with only a relatively small 

cognitive component. Of course, every 

secondary task results in some cognitive 

load; however, tasks that could be said 

to not require a lot of thought, such as 

Reaching for a Moving Object, are 

towards the right side of Figure 1. Only 

the secondary tasks, ‘‘Interacting with 

Passenger’’ and ‘‘Talking/Listening on 

Hands-Free Phone,’’ are almost 

exclusively cognitive in nature. Both of 

these secondary tasks have risk odds 

ratios that are statistically significantly 

less than 1.00 (at the 95 percent 

confidence level). These two heavily 

cognitive secondary tasks appear to 

have protective effects. 

For this reason, and because it is far 

less clear how to measure the level of 

cognitive distraction, the NHTSA 

Guidelines will initially only apply to 

the visual-manual aspects of devices’ 

driver interfaces. Subsequent phases of 

development of these NHTSA 

Guidelines are planned to extend them 

to cover the auditory-vocal portions of 

device interfaces. 

• Long (greater than 2.0 seconds) 

glances by the driver away from the 

forward road scene are correlated with 

increased crash/near-crash risk. When 

drivers glance away from the forward 

roadway for greater than 2.0 seconds out 

of a 6-second period, their risk of an 

unsafe event substantially increases 

relative to the baseline. 

C. NHTSA’s Driver Distraction Program 

NHTSA’s safety mission is to ‘‘save 

lives, prevent injuries, and reduce 

economic costs due to road traffic 

crashes.’’ One focus of this mission is 

the prevention of road traffic crashes for 

which driver distraction is a 

contributing factor.15

In April 2010, NHTSA released an 

‘‘Overview of the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration’s Driver 

Distraction Program,’’ 16 which 

summarized steps that NHTSA intends 

to take to ‘‘help in its long-term goal of 

eliminating a specific category of 

crashes—those attributable to driver 

distraction.’’ NHTSA’s Driver 

Distraction Program consists of four 

initiatives: 

1. Improve the understanding of the 

extent and nature of the distraction 

problem. This includes improving the 

quality of data NHTSA collects about 

distraction-related crashes along with 

better analysis techniques. 

2. Reduce the driver workload 

associated with performing tasks using 

both built-in and portable in-vehicle 

devices by working to limit the visual 

and manual demand associated with 

secondary tasks performed using invehicle devices. Better device interfaces 

will help to minimize the amount of 

time and effort involved in a driver 

performing a task using the device. 

Minimizing the workload associated 

with performing non-driving, or 

‘‘secondary,’’ tasks with a device will 

permit drivers to maximize the attention 

they focus toward the primary task of 

driving. 

3. Keep drivers safe through the 

introduction of crash avoidance 

technologies. These include the use of 

crash warning systems to re-focus the 

attention of distracted drivers as well as 

vehicle-initiated (i.e., automatic) 

braking and steering to prevent or 

mitigate distracted driver crashes. 

Although not the focus of this notice, 

NHTSA is, in parallel with its NHTSA 

Guidelines development effort, 

performing a large amount of research in 

support of the crash avoidance 

technologies initiative. For example, 

NHTSA has completed, and reports 

should be published shortly, research 

about how to best warn distracted 

drivers. We are also performing a large 

amount of research on forward collision 

avoidance and mitigation technologies 

such as Forward Collision Warning, 

Collision Imminent Braking, and 

Dynamic Brake Assist. 

4. Educate drivers about the risks and 

consequences of distracted driving. This 

includes targeted media messages, 

drafting and publishing sample textmessaging laws for consideration and 

possible use by the states, and 

publishing guidance for a ban on text 

messaging by Federal government 

employees while driving. 

This notice is part of NHTSA’s effort 

to address the second of these 

initiatives, reducing driver workload by 

working to limit the visual and manual 

demand associated with in-vehicle 

device interface designs. As discussed 

in NHTSA’s Driver Distraction Program, 

NHTSA’s intent is to ‘‘develop voluntary 

guidelines for minimizing the 

distraction potential of in-vehicle and 

portable devices’’.17 The current notice 

only contains voluntary NHTSA 

Guidelines for integrated in-vehicle 

devices; portable devices will be 

addressed by Phase 2 of the NHTSA 

Guidelines. 

Drivers perform secondary tasks 

(communications, entertainment, 

informational, and navigation tasks not 

required to drive 18) using an in-vehicle 

electronic device by interacting with the 

device through its driver interface. 

These interfaces can be designed to 

accommodate interactions that are 

visual-manual (visual display and 

manual controls), auditory-vocal, or a 

combination of the two. Some devices 

may allow a driver to perform a task 

through either manual control 

manipulation with visual feedback or 

through voice command with auditory 

feedback to the driver. 

For the purposes of this document, a 

driver’s interactions with device 

interfaces are described in terms of two 

functional categories based upon the 

mode of interaction: visual-manual and 

auditory-vocal. Visual-manual 

interactions involve the driver looking 

at a device, making inputs to the device 

by hand (e.g., pressing a button, rotating 

a knob), and visual feedback being 

provided to the driver. Auditory-vocal 

interactions involve the driver 

controlling the device functions through 

voice commands and receiving auditory 

feedback from the device. Note that a 

single device’s driver interface may 

accommodate both visual-manual and 

auditory-vocal interactions. 

These proposed voluntary NHTSA 

Guidelines are appropriate for invehicle device tasks that are performed 

by the driver through visual-manual 

means. The goal of the NHTSA 

Guidelines is to discourage the 

implementation of tasks performed 

using in-vehicle electronic devices 

unless the tasks and device driver 

interfaces are designed to minimize 

driver workload experienced by a driver 

when performing the tasks while 

driving. The NHTSA Guidelines specify 

criteria and a test method for assessing 

whether a secondary task performed 

using an in-vehicle device may be 

suitable for performance while driving, 

due to its minimal impact on driving 

performance and, therefore, safety. The 

NHTSA Guidelines also seek to identify 

secondary tasks that interfere with a 

driver’s ability to safely control the 

vehicle and to categorize those tasks as 

being unsuitable for performance by the 

driver while driving. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11207 

19 Information about SHRP2 is at: http://trb.org/ 

StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/ 

Blank2.aspx. 

20One possible solution to the issue of nonrepeatability due to individual variability has been 

thought of by NHTSA. The idea is to remove 

repeatability as an issue by only testing any given 

task on a device one time. A company that wished 

to know whether a task and/or device is acceptable 

for being performed while a vehicle is not in ‘‘Park’’ 

would perform the NHTSA specified test using all 

of the NHTSA specified test procedures for test 

participant selection, test conduct, etc., and 

document the results. If NHTSA subsequently was 

interested in monitoring whether that particular 

task and/or device met the distraction test’s 

acceptance criteria, NHTSA would consider the 

company’s documented record of the test as 

conclusive proof of meeting the acceptance criteria 

of the test and not perform the test itself. NHTSA 

would only perform testing if a company had not 

performed the test. However, NHTSA has never 

tried such an approach and does not wish to 

consider such a novel approach with a complex 

topic such as driver distraction. 

III. Why distraction guidelines? 

NHTSA is proposing voluntary 

NHTSA Guidelines to limit and/or 

reduce visual-manual driver distraction 

due to integrated electronic devices, 

instead of a mandatory Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), for 

several reasons. First, the rapid pace of 

technology evolution cannot be fully 

addressed with a static rule put in place 

at this time. Second, data is not 

sufficient at this time to permit accurate 

estimation of the benefits of a possible 

distracted driving rule, though NHTSA 

firmly believes that there are safety 

benefits to be gained by limiting and 

reducing driver distraction due to 

integrated electronic devices. Finally, 

NHTSA rules must have repeatable, 

objective means for determining 

compliance and driver distraction 

testing involves drivers with inherent 

individual differences that present a 

unique challenge. Each of these reasons 

is discussed in detail below. 

• In 2002, the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers developed a set of 

guidelines to address the agency’s call 

that manufacturers should develop a set 

of design principles to which future 

products would be designed. The intent 

was to address the increasing use of 

navigation units, infotainment, and 

complex controls appearing in vehicles 

that, if used while driving, could 

present an additional source of 

distraction for drivers leading to an 

increase in crashes. Since that time, 

NHTSA has been monitoring and 

conducting driver distraction research 

using a sample of the designs that have 

been developed in accordance with the 

Alliance Guidelines. Our observations 

are as follows: (1) Manufacturers have 

different interpretations of the 

guidelines themselves, leading to 

different implementations, (2) newer 

techniques exist to evaluate these 

interfaces than existed nearly a decade 

ago, (3) the guidelines have not kept 

pace with technology, and (4) more 

recent data compiled from naturalistic 

driving studies implies that more 

stringent criteria are needed. Given 

these observations, we believe it is 

appropriate to issue Federal guidelines 

to ensure that current and future 

products continue to be designed in 

such a way as to mitigate driver 

distraction as opposed to adding to it. In 

addition, we believe Federal guidelines 

are appropriate because they can keep 

pace with rapidly changing technology 

by providing a benchmark for designers 

while allowing the agency and other 

researchers to continue their work in 

this rapidly evolving area, including the 

assessment of test procedures for 

regulatory purposes. 

• In-vehicle communications and 

electronics are currently evolving at a 

pace that is not amenable to regulation. 

We believe that establishing Federal 

guidelines at this time is appropriate for 

these rapidly changing in-vehicle 

technologies, since it will provide a 

comprehensive means to ensure the 

reasonableness of designs. As new 

systems, features, functions, and types 

of control inputs are developed, NHTSA 

should be able to develop voluntary 

NHTSA Guidelines to address any 

potential safety issues as they arise. 

These NHTSA Guidelines can be issued 

more quickly than regulations that go 

through the rulemaking process. 

• Existing data provide a sufficient 

basis on which to establish general 

NHTSA Guidelines that, if followed, 

will deter manufacturers from 

introducing in-vehicle information and 

communications systems that induce 

the kinds and duration of visual-manual 

distraction that are demonstrably 

unsafe. In future years, data from a 

major naturalistic research study that is 

currently being conducted through the 

Strategic Highway Research Program 2 

(SHRP2) 19 should provide better 

information on the precise causation of 

distraction related incidents. 

• Additionally, the test method 

developed by NHTSA in these NHTSA 

Guidelines in its current form would not 

meet the statutory requirements for 

establishing compliance with a FMVSS. 

Specifically, NHTSA’s authorizing 

legislation requires that FMVSS contain 

objective and repeatable procedures, 

such as engineering measurement, for 

determining compliance or noncompliance of a vehicle with the 

standard. Driver distraction testing 

involves human drivers with inherent 

individual differences that present a 

unique challenge. A FMVSS with a 

compliance test procedure that entails 

driver involvement would not meet 

those requirements due to the 

individual variability of the drivers 

involved in the test. 

Consider a brake compliance test; it 

tests the manufactured parts that 

comprise the braking, wheel, and tire 

systems. NHTSA has gone to 

considerable effort to tightly prescribe 

the actions of the professional test 

driver so that they do not influence test 

results. The main sources of test nonrepeatability are the manufacturing 

tolerances of the vehicle components 

and the variability in the road surface. 

Again, NHTSA has tried to specify the 

road surface so as to minimize test 

variability. Due to the tight specification 

of test driver’s actions and road surface, 

brake compliance testing is highly 

repeatable. 

In comparison, driver distraction tests 

involve average drivers as a critical part 

of the test of the in-vehicle system. The 

driver’s actions cannot be tightly 

prescribed, as was done for brake 

testing. Unfortunately, the level of 

driver distraction due to performing a 

task using a device inherently depends 

upon the personal characteristics and 

capabilities of the driver. The driver’s 

manual dexterity, multi-tasking ability, 

driving experience, state of health, age, 

intelligence, and motivation (among 

other factors) may all influence the level 

of distraction experienced while 

performing a task. In an effort to 

‘‘average out’’ individual differences, a 

group of 24 test participants is used for 

the NHTSA Driver Distraction Guideline 

tests described in this document. 

Furthermore, these NHTSA Guidelines 

contain provisions designed to ensure 

that test participants are not biased 

either for or against a task/device. 

However, there remains a chance that 

one group of 24 test subjects will 

produce a test result that finds a task or 

device suitable for performance while 

the vehicle is in motion, while testing 

with another group of 24 subjects may 

find that the task or device should be 

locked out. Therefore, the test would 

not be repeatable and therefore is not 

appropriate for a FMVSS.20

IV. NHTSA Research To Develop Driver 

Distraction Metrics and Measurement 

Methods 

A. Timeline of NHTSA Driver 

Distraction Measurement Research 

NHTSA has been performing research 

addressing issues related to driver 

distraction for nearly 20 years. Early 

research examined truck driver 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11208 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

21 Green, P., ‘‘Estimating Compliance with the 15- 

Second Rule for Driver-interface Usability and 

Safety,’’ Proceedings of the Human Factors and 

Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting, 1999. 

22 Green, P., ‘‘The 15-second Rule for Driver 

Information Systems,’’ ITS America Ninth Annual 

Meeting Conference Proceedings, Washington, DC, 

1999. 

23Angell, L., Auflick, J., Austria, P. A., Kochhar, 

D., Tijerina, L., Biever, W., Diptiman, T., Hogsett, 

J., and Kiger, S., ‘‘Driver Workload Metrics Task 2 

Final Report,’’ DOT HS 810 635, November 2006. 24CAMP included researchers from Ford, GM, 

Nissan, and Toyota. 25Ranney, 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. 

26Mattes, S., ‘‘The lane change task as a tool for 

driver distraction evaluation,’’ in GfA/17th Annual 

Conference of the International-Society-forOccupational-Ergonomics-and-Safety (ISOES) 

Stuttgart, Germany: Ergonomia Verlag OHG, BrunoJacoby-Weg 11, D–70597, 2003. 

27Angell, L., Auflick, J., Austria, P. A., Kochhar, 

D., Tijerina, L., Biever, W., Diptiman, T., Hogsett, 

J., and Kiger, S., ‘‘Driver Workload Metrics Task 2 

Final Report,’’ DOT HS 810 635, November 2006. 

workload and the effects of using a route 

navigation system on driving 

performance. In the last decade, 

research has been focused on assessing 

the impact of cell phone use on driver 

performance and behavior. As the 

availability of in-vehicle electronic 

devices has increased, NHTSA’s 

research focus has shifted to 

development of methods and metrics for 

measuring distraction resulting from the 

use of any such device while driving. 

Each research study has contributed to 

the development of a broad set of 

metrics that characterize the impact of 

the performance of distracting tasks on 

driving performance in a repeatable and 

objective manner. The development of 

valid and sensitive measures of 

distraction effects on driving 

performance is challenging because 

distraction measurement inherently 

involves human test subjects. This 

section summarizes several recent 

NHTSA studies that focused on 

developing a valid, robust protocol for 

measuring driver distraction caused by 

the use of in-vehicle electronic devices. 

B. ‘‘15-Second Rule’’ Study 

In the 1990s, SAE International 

worked to develop a recommended 

practice for determining whether or not 

a particular navigation system function 

should be accessible to the driver while 

driving. The draft recommended 

practice (SAE J2364) 21 22 asserted that if 

an in-vehicle task could be completed 

within 15 seconds by a sample of 

drivers in a static (e.g., vehicle parked) 

setting, then the function was suitable to 

perform while driving. NHTSA 

conducted a preliminary assessment of 

the diagnostic properties of this 

proposed rule. Ten subjects, aged 55 to 

69 years, completed 15 tasks, including 

navigation system destination entry, 

radio tuning, manual phone dialing, and 

adjusting the Heating, Ventilation, and 

Air Conditioning (HVAC) controls in a 

test vehicle. Correlations between static 

task performance and dynamic task 

performance were relatively low. The 

results were interpreted to suggest that 

static measurement of task completion 

time could not reliably predict the 

acceptability of a device. Based on these 

results, NHTSA looked to other metrics 

and methods for use in assessing 

secondary task distraction in subsequent 

research. 

C. Collision Avoidance Metrics 

Partnership (CAMP) Driver Workload 

Metrics Project 23

The Driver Workload Metrics project 

conducted by the Collision Avoidance 

Metrics Partnership (CAMP) 

consortium,24 in cooperation with 

NHTSA, sought to develop performance 

metrics and test procedures for 

assessing in-vehicle system secondary 

task distraction and its impact on 

driving performance. The CAMP 

identified four categories of driving 

performance metrics as having direct 

implications for safety: driver eye glance 

patterns, lateral vehicle control, 

longitudinal vehicle control, and objectand-event detection. A number of 

potential surrogates thought to have 

predictive value with respect to the 

above-mentioned performance measures 

were identified. CAMP’s analyses 

sought to determine which performance 

metrics discriminated between driving 

with a secondary task and driving alone. 

The majority of metrics that passed the 

evaluation criteria were related to eyeglance behavior. Visual-manual tasks 

affected driving performance more than 

auditory-vocal tasks. The project 

concluded that eye-glance data contain 

important information for assessing the 

distraction effects of both auditory-vocal 

and visual-manual tasks. One significant 

conclusion of this work was that the 

interference to driving caused by invehicle secondary tasks was 

multidimensional and no single metric 

could measure all effects. 

D. Measuring Distraction Potential of 

Operating In-Vehicle Devices 25

Following the Driver Workload 

Metrics project, in 2006, NHTSA 

explored the feasibility of adapting one 

or more existing driver distraction 

measurement protocols for use with 

production vehicles rather than preproduction prototypes. NHTSA wanted 

a well-documented, simple, nondestructive test that would allow test 

vehicles to be obtained by lease and 

therefore minimize research costs. 

Additional protocol criteria included: 

(1) Ease of implementation, (2) the test 

protocol’s state-of-development, 

including extent of use and 

documentation, (3) the level of training 

and staffing required, (4) objective 

measures, and (5) the availability and 

interpretability of data. 

Test venues meeting these criteria 

included the personal computer-based 

Advanced Driver Attention Metrics 

(ADAM) Lane Change Task (LCT) 26 and 

the Systems Technology Inc. (STI) lowcost, low-fidelity driving simulator 

(STISIM–Drive). The LCT is a 

standalone driving simulation that 

requires drivers to execute lane changes 

when prompted by signs appearing in 

the scenario. The LCT combines vehicle 

control performance, object detection, 

and response speed into a single 

summary performance measure. Based 

on CAMP 27 study recommendations, 

the STISIM driving scenario used 

involved car following with occasional 

oncoming traffic, in combination with 

the Peripheral Detection Task (PDT) to 

provide a visual object-event detection 

component. A Seeing Machines faceLab 

eye tracking system was used with both 

primary test venues. 

Two initial experiments were 

conducted to evaluate the metrics 

associated with the STISIM and LCT 

test venues and to assess the metrics’ 

sensitivity for detecting known and 

hypothesized differences between 

different secondary tasks. Results 

showed that most metrics were sensitive 

to changes in visual-manual load 

associated with visual search tasks. 

STISIM driving performance and PDT 

metrics were the most sensitive 

objective metrics and were generally 

more sensitive than LCT metrics. A 

third experiment that compared the 

sensitivity of measures obtained in the 

laboratory with that of an established 

test track protocol showed similarity 

among patterns of workload ratings. 

However, the laboratory simulator 

measures were more sensitive to 

secondary task load differences than the 

corresponding test track measures. 

Overall, the laboratory environment 

provided better control of test 

conditions, particularly visibility, and 

less measurement error than the test 

track. The limited fidelity of the 

simulator did not reduce the sensitivity 

of the simulator-based metrics for 

detecting the targeted differences 

between task conditions. The breadth of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11209 

28Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Parmer, E., 

Domeyer, J., Martin, J., and Mazzae, E. N., 

‘‘Developing a Test To Measure Distraction 

Potential of In-Vehicle Information System Tasks in 

Production Vehicles,’’ DOT HS 811 463, November 

2011. 

29Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Parmer, E., 

Martin, J., and Mazzae, E. N., ‘‘Distraction Effects 

of Manual Number and Text Entry While Driving,’’ 

DOT HS 811 510, August 2011. 

30P. 38, Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, 

‘‘Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification 

Procedures on Driver-Interactions with Advanced 

In-Vehicle Information and Communication 

Systems,’’ June 26, 2006 version, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, Washington, DC. 

STISIM/PDT measurement capabilities 

is also consistent with the general 

consensus that multiple measures are 

necessary to fully characterize 

distraction effects. Thus, the driving 

simulator protocol was retained for 

further research. 

E. Developing a Test To Measure 

Distraction Potential of In-Vehicle 

Information System Tasks in Production 

Vehicles 28

In 2009, NHTSA continued its efforts 

to develop a sensitive method of driver 

distraction measurement using 

production vehicles. Research was 

conducted using the visual occlusion 

technique, which involves periodic 

interruption of vision (via electronically 

shuttered goggles or some other 

apparatus) during the performance of a 

secondary task to simulate the driver 

glancing at the roadway while driving. 

By summing the duration of periods of 

unoccluded vision, the technique 

provides an estimate of the time that the 

driver looks away from the roadway to 

perform the secondary task. Because in 

the traditional occlusion method, 

participants have no primary task load 

(to simulate the demands of driving), 

the task completion time estimates do 

not include time during which 

participants continue to work on the 

secondary task during occluded 

intervals. To address this ‘‘blind 

operation’’ concern, an Enhanced 

Occlusion Technique (EOT) was also 

examined. This technique incorporated 

an auditory tracking task intended to 

simulate the demands of driving 

without interfering with the visual 

demands of occlusion. 

The study compared task completion 

times obtained with the traditional 

occlusion protocol with those obtained 

using the EOT to assess their relative 

abilities to assess the distraction effects 

of secondary tasks. The experiment also 

sought to determine the extent to which 

blind operation is eliminated by the 

EOT. Data from occlusion trials were 

also used to compute indices of task 

resumability (R), which indicate how 

amenable a task is to completion under 

conditions of interruption, as in driving. 

Three navigation system tasks were 

used, including destination entry by 

address, selecting a previous 

destination, and searching a list of 

cities. Results showed that the EOT 

eliminated some blind operation, but 

not all of it. Specifically, with 

traditional occlusion, approximately 23 

percent of the actions required to 

perform the task was accomplished 

during occluded intervals. With the 

EOT, the corresponding percentage was 

11 percent. The R metrics differed 

between the traditional occlusion and 

EOT conditions, but neither R metric 

revealed differences between secondary 

task conditions. This led to the 

conclusion that task resumability (R) 

does not reflect the same performance 

degradation revealed by the driving 

performance metrics. The destination 

entry by address task was associated 

with a significantly higher level of 

(auditory) tracking error than the 

previous destination task. 

A complementary experiment was 

conducted as part of this project using 

a multiple-target detection task to assess 

the distraction potential of three 

navigation systems with comparable 

functionality. Participants performed 

two navigation system tasks (destination 

entry by address and previous 

destination) using one original 

equipment system and two portable 

systems, each differing in their rated 

usability. Metrics revealed strong and 

consistent differences between baseline 

driving and driving with a secondary 

task. Three objective metrics (carfollowing coherence, detection task 

mean response time and the proportion 

of long glances) revealed differences 

between the destination entry by 

address and previous destination tasks 

generally. Based on the results of these 

experiments, it was concluded that it is 

feasible to use a simulator-based test to 

assess the distraction potential of 

secondary tasks performed with original 

equipment systems integrated into 

production vehicles. Test results 

indicated that a broad range of metrics, 

including measures of car-following, 

lateral vehicle control, target detection, 

and visual performance, were 

consistently and robustly sensitive to 

differences between categories of 

secondary tasks and between baseline 

driving and driving while performing 

secondary tasks. Fewer metrics were 

found to be sensitive to differences 

between visual-manual task conditions: 

Lane-position variability (SDLP), the 

time required for a following vehicle to 

react to lead vehicle speed changes, and 

detection task response time. 

While the EOT represented an 

improvement over the traditional 

occlusion paradigm for providing 

information about the time required to 

perform various secondary tasks, task 

duration estimates obtained with either 

the traditional occlusion protocol or the 

EOT both differed from comparable 

values obtained in a controlled driving 

situation. Due to their increased 

sensitivity for detecting differences 

within task conditions, the SDLP, the 

time required for a following vehicle to 

react to lead vehicle speed changes, 

detection task response time and 

proportion of correct responses are 

considered core metrics for assessing 

distraction potential using driving 

simulation methods. Measures based on 

eye position data, primarily the 

proportion of long glances away from 

the forward roadway, also exhibited 

differences between tasks. 

F. Distraction Effects of Manual Number 

and Text Entry While Driving 29

In 2010, NHTSA conducted research 

to further develop its driving simulator 

method in order to assess the distraction 

potential of secondary tasks performed 

using in-vehicle information systems in 

production vehicles or portable 

electronic devices. The ‘‘Dynamic 

Following and Detection’’ (DFD) method 

combines car following and visual target 

detection, can be used with different 

vehicles, and requires minimal set up 

effort. Performance degradation in 

measures of lateral position, car 

following, and visual target detection, 

which are recorded for trials with 

secondary tasks, is compared to baseline 

driving performance and trials with a 

benchmark task (destination entry). 

NHTSA conducted a study to assess the 

effects of performing Manual Number 

and Text Entry (MNTE) tasks using 

integrated and portable devices in a 

driving simulator scenario to compare 

the DFD metrics with metrics specified 

in the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers Driver-Focus Telematics 

Guidelines (the Alliance Guidelines). 

This study was also intended to 

evaluate different test participant 

selection criteria and sample sizes. 

Specifically, the study examined 

Alliance Guidelines’ Principle 2.1, 

which states: 

Systems with visual displays should be 

designed such that the driver can complete 

the desired task with sequential glances that 

are brief enough not to adversely affect 

driving.30

The Alliance proposed two 

alternatives for assessing compliance. 

Alternative A includes two criteria that 

should be met: (1) durations of single 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11210 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

31Test participants were unfamiliar with the 

device being used as per the test procedure 

requirements. 

32 Dialing using 10 digits was the only number of 

digits examined in this study. 

33Angell, L., Auflick, J., Austria, P. A., Kochhar, 

D., Tijerina, L., Biever, W., Diptiman, T., Hogsett, 

J., and Kiger, S., ‘‘Driver Workload Metrics Task 2 

Final Report,’’ DOT HS 810 635, November 2006. 

34 Ibid. 

35 Ibid. 

36 Ibid. 

37Ranney, 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. 

38 Ibid. 

glances to the task should generally not 

exceed 2 seconds; and (2) total glance 

time to the task (TGT) should not 

exceed 20 seconds. Alternative B 

identifies two driving performance 

measures (lane exceedance frequency 

and car-following headway variability) 

and outlines a generic test protocol in 

which task-related degradation is 

related to degradation on a benchmark 

task (radio tuning). 

For the MNTE study, an experiment 

was conducted in which 100 

participants aged 25 to 64 years 

performed number and text entry tasks 

during 3-minute drives using the 

STISIM driving simulator. Sensors 

connected to the steering, brake, and 

throttle of a single stationary 2010 

Toyota Prius (with engine off) provided 

control inputs to the fixed-base driving 

simulator. The significant overlap in 

data collection requirements between 

Alliance and DFD protocols allowed the 

necessary data for a side-by-side 

comparison to be obtained from a single 

experiment. The experiment had three 

independent variables: (1) Portable 

device (hard button cell phone or touchscreen cell phone) 31; (2) benchmark 

(radio tuning or destination entry); and 

(3) driver age. Secondary tasks 

performed included two methods of 

phone dialing (10-digit dialing 32 and 

contact selection), text messaging, 

destination entry and radio tuning. 

Study results showed that text 

messaging was associated with the 

highest level of distraction potential. 

Ten-digit dialing was the second most 

distracting task; radio tuning had the 

lowest level. Although destination entry 

was no more demanding than radio 

tuning when task duration effects were 

eliminated with DFD metrics, it exposes 

drivers to more risk than radio tuning 

and phone tasks due to its considerably 

longer duration. Modest differences 

between phones were observed, 

including higher levels of driving 

performance degradation associated 

with the touch screen relative to the 

hard button phone for several measures. 

Additional analyses demonstrated that 

the way in which task duration is 

considered in the definition of metrics 

influenced the outcomes of statistical 

tests using the metrics. The results are 

discussed in the context of the 

development of guidelines for 

assessment of the distraction potential 

of tasks performed with in-vehicle 

information systems and portable 

devices. 

Additional analyses were conducted 

to compare the DFD and Alliance 

Guidelines’ decision criteria in a 

simulated compliance scenario. With 

the large sample size (N = 100), both 

protocols supported the conclusion that 

neither text messaging nor 10-digit 

dialing is suitable for combining with 

driving; however, when a smaller (N = 

40) sample was used, the protocols led 

to different conclusions. Considering 

only the vehicle performance metrics 

(not the eye glance metrics), samples of 

20 participants did not provide 

sufficient statistical power to 

differentiate among secondary tasks. 

Driver age had significant effects on 

both primary and secondary task 

performance; younger drivers completed 

more secondary task trials on a given 

drive with relatively less primary task 

interference than older drivers. Tests 

conducted using samples with wide age 

ranges (25–64) required larger samples 

to compensate for reduced homogeneity 

relative to samples with narrow age 

ranges. 

Based on these results, two issues 

were identified as having implications 

for developing guidelines to assess the 

distraction potential of tasks performed 

with in-vehicle and portable systems. 

The first issue pertains to the question 

of how to incorporate task duration into 

the construction and interpretation of 

metrics. Secondary tasks differ in 

duration and these differences influence 

the overall exposure to risk. Metrics that 

summarize performance over varying 

durations are influenced by differences 

in task duration. In contrast, metrics 

that normalize for task duration 

summarize task performance over 

equivalent time intervals and thus 

represent the expected magnitude of 

performance degradation at any point in 

time during which a task is performed. 

These approaches provide 

complementary information, which 

could be used together to characterize 

the total exposure to risk associated 

with different tasks. One approach 

toward integration involves using 

duration-controlled metrics to estimate 

the average level of performance 

degradation associated with a particular 

secondary task and then multiplying 

this estimate by the average or some 

specified percentile (e.g., 85th) task 

duration to estimate the total exposure 

to risk associated with performing the 

task once. 

The finding having the most 

prominent implications for developing 

driver distraction guidelines for visualmanual interactions was that the driving 

simulation method of measuring 

distraction potential is most sensitive to 

differences in distraction levels of 

secondary tasks when performed using 

more than 40 test participants of 

homogeneous age range. 

G. Principal Findings of NHTSA Driver 

Distraction Metric Research 

Each of the research studies described 

above provided information which laid 

the foundation for the NHTSA 

Guidelines. The principal findings 

include the following: 

• Visual-manual secondary tasks 

affected driving performance more than 

auditory-vocal tasks.33 This could 

change as auditory-vocal interfaces 

become more prevalent and allow 

drivers to perform more complex 

secondary tasks. 

• Eye-glance data contained 

important information for assessing the 

distraction effects of both auditory-vocal 

and visual-manual tasks.34

• The interference to driving caused 

by in-vehicle secondary tasks was 

multidimensional and no single metric 

could measure all effects.35

• CAMP Driver Workload Metrics 

project concluded that cognitive 

distraction played a much smaller role 

than visual distraction.36 Again, this 

could change as auditory-vocal 

interfaces become more prevalent and 

allow drivers to perform more complex 

secondary tasks. 

The research involved the 

development of sensitive test 

procedures and metrics for measuring 

driver distraction. Some of the 

conclusions drawn from the research 

which contributed to the basis of 

content in the NHTSA Guidelines 

include: 

• Experimentation involving a fixedbased driving simulator in a laboratory 

environment provided better control of 

test conditions, particularly visibility, 

and less measurement error than did 

experimentation utilizing a test track.37

• Limited fidelity of driving 

simulation did not reduce the 

sensitivity of simulator-based metrics 

for detecting targeted differences 

between task conditions.38

• Metrics found to be sensitive to 

differences between visual-manual task 

conditions include lane-position 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11211 

39Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Parmer, E., 

Domeyer, J., Martin, J., and Mazzae, E.N., 

‘‘Developing a Test to Measure Distraction Potential 

of In-Vehicle Information System Tasks in 

Production Vehicles,’’ DOT HS 811 463, November 

2011. 

40 Ibid. 

41 Ibid. 

42 Ibid. 

43 Ibid. 

44Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Parmer, E., 

Martin, J., and Mazzae, E.N., ‘‘Distraction Effects of 

Manual Number and Text Entry While Driving,’’ 

DOT HS 811 510, August 2011. 

45 Ibid. 

46 Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, 

‘‘Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification 

Procedures on Driver-Interactions With Advanced 

In-Vehicle Information and Communication 

Systems,’’ June 26, 2006 version, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, Washington, DC. 

47PP 1–5, Driver Focus-Telematics Working 

Group, ‘‘Statement of Principles, Criteria and 

Verification Procedures on Driver-Interactions with 

Advanced In-Vehicle Information and 

Communication Systems,’’ June 26, 2006 version, 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 

Washington, DC. 

variability (SDLP), the time required for 

a following vehicle to react to lead 

vehicle speed changes, and detection 

task response time.39

• Metrics found to be sensitive to 

differences between auditory-vocal task 

conditions included the time required 

for a following vehicle to react to lead 

vehicle speed changes, detection task 

response time, and detection task 

proportion of correct responses.40

• Core metrics for assessing 

distraction potential using driving 

simulator-based methods include laneposition variability, the time required 

for a following vehicle to react to lead 

vehicle speed changes, detection task 

response time, and the proportion of 

correct responses due to their increased 

sensitivity for detecting differences 

within task conditions.41

• Differences in sample size and 

sample construction (test participant 

age) have significant differences on test 

outcome. Sample sizes larger than 40 

participants are needed for the vehicle 

performance metrics in order to provide 

adequate statistical power and avoid 

effects of sample composition.42

• A driving scenario involving a 

following task with constant lead 

vehicle speed seems to provide a less 

realistic level of driving task difficulty 

and may not sufficiently engage test 

participants in the test protocol.43

With regard to specific tasks and their 

treatment in the NHTSA Guidelines for 

visual-manual tasks, the following 

research findings provided key input: 

• Text messaging was found to be 

more distracting than any other 

secondary task considered in this study 

on a number of metrics. The Alliance 

and DFD metrics and decision criteria 

both supported the conclusion that text 

messaging is not suitable for 

performance while driving.44

• Phone dialing using 10 digits was 

found to be only slightly less distracting 

than text messaging. For larger sample 

sizes, the Alliance and DFD metrics and 

decision criteria both suggested that 10- 

digit phone dialing is not suitable for 

performance while driving.45 This study 

did not examine 7-digit phone dialing. 

However, NHTSA is currently 

performing research to examine the 

suitability of 7-digit phone dialing while 

driving. 

V. Driver Distraction Prevention and 

Reduction Guidelines 

A. Currently Existing Driver Distraction 

Guidelines 

On July 18, 2000, NHTSA held a 

public meeting to address a growing 

concern in the traffic safety 

community—driver distraction. This 

meeting addressed the rapid emergence 

of informational and entertainment 

devices, as well as cellular telephones. 

Consistent with NHTSA’s regulatory 

authority, the Agency issued a challenge 

to the automotive industry—develop 

interface guidelines to reduce the 

distraction potential of emerging 

technologies. The Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers accepted the 

challenge by developing a set of ‘‘best 

practices’’ for ‘‘telematic’’ 

(communication, entertainment, 

information, and navigation) devices. 

The first version of the Alliance’s 

Statement of Principles, Criteria and 

Verification Procedures on Driver 

Interactions with Advanced In-Vehicle 

Information and Communication 

Systems (referred to elsewhere in this 

document as the Alliance Guidelines), 

were published in December 2000. 

Updates to the Alliance Guidelines was 

published in April 22, 2002 (Version 

2.0), November 19, 2003 (Version 2.1), 

and, the most recent version (Version 

3.0), on June 26, 2006.46

The Alliance Guidelines consist of 24 

principles (organized into five groups: 

Installation Principles, Information 

Presentation Principles, Principles on 

Interactions with Displays/Controls, 

System Behavior Principles, and 

Principles on Information about the 

System) that apply to each device’s 

driver interface to ensure safe operation 

while driving. Each principle includes, 

when appropriate for that principle, a 

rationale, verification methods, 

acceptability criteria, and examples. 

Quoting from the Alliance Guidelines,47

its principles are as follows: 

Section 1: Installation Principles 

Principle 1.1: The system should be 

located and fitted in accordance with 

relevant regulations, standards, and the 

vehicle and component manufacturers’ 

instructions for installing the systems in 

vehicles. 

Principle 1.2: No part of the system should 

obstruct the driver’s field of view as 

defined by applicable regulations. 

Principle 1.3: No part of the physical 

system should obstruct any vehicle 

controls or displays required for the 

driving task. 

Principle 1.4: Visual displays that carry 

information relevant to the driving task 

and visually-intensive information 

should be positioned as close as 

practicable to the driver’s forward line of 

sight. 

Principle 1.5: Visual displays should be 

designed and installed to reduce or 

minimize glare and reflections. 

Section 2: Information Presentation 

Principles 

Principle 2.1: Systems with visual displays 

should be designed such that the driver 

can complete the desired task with 

sequential glances that are brief enough 

not to adversely affect driving. 

Principle 2.2: Where appropriate, 

internationally agreed upon standards or 

recognized industry practice relating to 

legibility, icons, symbols, words, 

acronyms, or abbreviations should be 

used. Where no standards exist, relevant 

design guidelines or empirical data 

should be used. 

Principle 2.3: Available information 

relevant to the driving task should be 

timely and accurate under routine 

driving conditions 

Principle 2.4: The system should not 

produce uncontrollable sound levels 

liable to mask warnings from within the 

vehicle or outside or to cause distraction 

or irritation. 

Section 3: Principles on Interactions with 

Displays/Controls 

Principle 3.1: The system should allow the 

driver to leave at least one hand on the 

steering control. 

Principle 3.2: Speech-based 

communication systems should include 

provision for hands-free speaking and 

listening. Starting, ending, or 

interrupting a dialog, however, may be 

done manually. A hands-free provision 

should not require preparation by the 

driver that violates any other principle 

while the vehicle is in motion. 

Principle 3.3: The system should not 

require uninterruptible sequences of 

manual/visual interactions. The driver 

should be able to resume an operatorinterrupted sequence of manual/visual 

interactions with the system at the point 

of interruption or at another logical point 

in the sequence. 

Principle 3.4: In general (but with specific 

exceptions) the driver should be able to 

control the pace of interaction with the 

system. The system should not require 

the driver to make time-critical 

responses when providing input to the 

system. 

Principle 3.5: The system’s response (e.g. 

feedback, confirmation) following driver 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11212 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

48 Green, P., ‘‘Driver Interface/HMI Standards to 

Minimize Driver Distraction/Overload,’’ SAE Paper 

2008–21–2002, 2008. 

49Commission of the European Communities, 

‘‘Commission Recommendation of 26 May 2008 on 

Safe and Efficient In-Vehicle Information and 

Communication Systems; Update of the European 

Statement of Principles on Human-Machine 

Interface,’’ 2008. 

50 Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, 

‘‘Guideline for In-Vehicle Display Systems, Version 

3.0,’’ Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, 

Tokyo, Japan, August 2004. 

51P. 7, Commission of the European 

Communities, ‘‘Commission Recommendation of 26 

May 2008 on Safe and Efficient In-Vehicle 

Information and Communication Systems; Update 

of the European Statement of Principles on HumanMachine Interface,’’ 2008. 

52P. 38, Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, 

‘‘Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification 

Procedures on Driver-Interactions with Advanced 

In-Vehicle Information and Communication 

Systems,’’ June 26, 2006 version, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, Washington, DC. 

53P. 13, Commission of the European 

Communities, ‘‘Commission Recommendation of 26 

May 2008 on Safe and Efficient In-Vehicle 

Information and Communication Systems; Update 

of the European Statement of Principles on HumanMachine Interface,’’ 2008. 

54 Ibid. 

input should be timely and clearly 

perceptible. 

Principle 3.6: Systems providing nonsafety-related dynamic (i.e. moving 

spatially) visual information should be 

capable of a means by which that 

information is not provided to the driver. 

Section 4: System Behavior Principles 

Principle 4.1: Visual information not 

related to driving that is likely to distract 

the driver significantly (e.g., video and 

continuously moving images and 

automatically scrolling text) 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. 

Principle 4.2(a): System functions not 

intended to be used by the driver while 

driving should be made inaccessible for 

the purpose of driver interaction while 

the vehicle is in motion. 

Principle 4.2(b): The system should clearly 

distinguish between those aspects of the 

system, which are intended for use by 

the driver while driving, and those 

aspects (e.g. specific functions, menus, 

etc) that are not intended to be used 

while driving. 

Principle 4.3: Information about current 

status, and any detected malfunction, 

within the system that is likely to have 

an adverse impact on safety should be 

presented to the driver. 

Section 5: Principles on Information about 

the System 

Principle 5.1: The system should have 

adequate instructions for the driver 

covering proper use and safety-relevant 

aspects of installation and maintenance. 

Principle 5.2: Safety instructions should be 

correct and simple. 

Principle 5.3: System instructions should 

be in a language or form designed to be 

understood by drivers in accordance 

with mandated or accepted regional 

practice. 

Principle 5.4: The instructions should 

distinguish clearly between those aspects 

of the system that are intended for use 

by the driver while driving, and those 

aspects (e.g. specific functions, menus, 

etc.) that are not intended to be used 

while driving. 

Principle 5.5: Product information should 

make it clear if special skills are required 

to use the system or if the product is 

unsuitable for particular users. 

Principle 5.6: Representations of system 

use (e.g. descriptions, photographs, and 

sketches) provided to the customer with 

the system should neither create 

unrealistic expectations on the part of 

potential users, nor encourage unsafe or 

illegal use. 

The Alliance Guidelines provide a 

comprehensive set of recommendations 

designed to limit visual-manual 

distraction while driving. The document 

includes relevant definitions, human 

factors principles for good device 

driver-interface design, methods for 

verifying compliance with the 

principles, and a number of examples. 

These Alliance Guidelines serves as an 

excellent foundation for the 

development of the NHTSA Guidelines. 

In addition to the Alliance 

Guidelines, numerous other standards 

and guidelines documents have been 

developed. A summary of these is 

contained in the SAE paper ‘‘Driver 

Interface/HMI Standards to Minimize 

Driver Distraction/Overload.’’48 The two 

other sets of these guidelines that most 

directly deal with driver distraction (in 

addition to the Alliance Guidelines) 

were: 

• Commission Recommendation of 26 

May 2008 on Safe and Efficient InVehicle Information and 

Communication Systems; Update of the 

European Statement of Principles on 

Human-Machine Interface (referred to as 

the ‘‘European Guidelines’’).49

• The Japan Automobile 

Manufacturers Association Guidelines 

for In-vehicle Display Systems—Version 

3.0 (referred to as the ‘‘JAMA 

Guidelines’’).50

The European Guidelines consist of 

34 principles that each in-vehicle 

device’s driver interface should meet to 

ensure safe operation while driving, as 

well as 16 safety recommendations for 

drivers, employers, advertisers, and 

personnel working for vehicle-for-hire 

operations. Driver interface principles 

are grouped into the following areas: 

Overall Design Principles, Installation 

Principles, Information Principles, 

Interactions with Controls and Displays 

Principles, System Behavior Principles, 

and Information about the System 

Principles, most of which are similar to 

the corresponding principles in the 

Alliance Guidelines. The principles 

present in the European Guidelines that 

are not present in the Alliance 

Guidelines are typically understood in 

the latter and do not have verification 

methods given in the former. For 

example, the first European Guidelines 

principle is: 

The system supports the driver and does 

not give rise to potentially hazardous 

behavior by the driver or other road users.51

While this principle is not explicitly 

written in the Alliance Guidelines, 

reading them clearly shows that this 

principle is the underlying one for all of 

the Alliance Guidelines. 

Unlike the Alliance Guidelines, the 

European Guidelines do not prescribe 

testing methods and acceptance criteria 

for determining whether a task can 

safely be performed by the driver while 

a vehicle is in motion. For example, one 

very important Alliance Guidelines 

principle, Principle 2.1, is: 

Systems with visual displays should be 

designed such that the driver can complete 

the desired task with sequential glances that 

are brief enough not to adversely affect 

driving.52

The Alliance Guidelines then follow 

this statement with many pages 

describing how to verify that a device’s 

interface meets this principle. In 

contrast, the corresponding European 

Guidelines principle reads: 

Visually displayed information presented 

at any one time by the system should be 

designed in such a way that the driver is able 

to assimilate the relevant information with a 

few glances which are brief enough not to 

adversely affect driving.53

However, the European Guidelines 

limit statements about the verification 

process to: 

Compare design alternatives for the 

presentation of information: the number and 

duration of glances needed to detect and 

acquire relevant information presented at any 

one time should be minimized.54

The JAMA Guidelines consist of four 

basic principles and 25 specific 

requirements that apply to each device’s 

driver interface to ensure safe operation 

while driving. Specific requirements are 

grouped into the following areas: 

Installation of Display Systems, 

Functions of Display Systems, Display 

System Operation While Vehicle in 

Motion, and Presentation of Information 

to Users. Additionally, there are three 

annexes: Display Monitor Location, 

Content and Display of Visual 

Information While Vehicle in Motion, 

and Operation of Display Monitors 

While Vehicle in Motion, as well as one 

appendix: Operation of Display 

Monitors While Vehicle in Motion. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11213 

55The JAMA Guidelines appear inconsistent as to 

the maximum number of letters that they allow to 

be displayed at one time. The above quote, which 

is taken from page 7 of the JAMA Guidelines 

appears to set the maximum allow number of letters 

to 31. However, the statement on page 13, ‘‘display 

of 31 or more letters at a time is prohibited,’’ 

appears to contradict this 31 character maximum 

value. NHTSA has selected the more conservative 

of these two values for its proposal. 

56P. 7, Japan Automobile Manufacturers 

Association, ‘‘Guideline for In-Vehicle Display 

Systems, Version 3.0,’’ Japan Automobile 

Manufacturers Association, Tokyo, Japan, August 

2004. 57 Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0053. 

Approximately one-half of the 

specific requirements in the JAMA 

Guidelines are essentially identical to 

the corresponding principles in the 

Alliance and European Guidelines. 

Like the Alliance Guidelines, the 

JAMA Guidelines prescribe acceptance 

criteria for determining whether a task 

can safely be performed by the driver 

while a vehicle is in motion. Based on 

the specified acceptance criteria, the 

JAMA Guidelines imply the use of the 

same testing methods (the JAMA 

Guidelines do not actually specify 

testing methods) as are contained in the 

Alliance Guideline’s Alternative A 

verification options: Eye Tracker 

Measurement, Video Recording of Test 

Participant’s Eyes/Face, and Testing 

using Occlusion. However, the JAMA 

acceptance criteria are more 

constraining than those found in the 

Alliance Guidelines. The JAMA 

Guidelines limit the maximum driver 

total glance time while performing a 

task (JAMA uses the same definition for 

task as is used in the Alliance 

Guidelines) to 8.0 seconds or 7.5 

seconds if occlusion is used (compare to 

the Alliance Guidelines limits of 20.0 

seconds for maximum driver total 

glance time or 15.0 seconds for 

occlusion). 

The JAMA Guidelines also contain a 

recommended limit on the amount of 

dynamic test that can be displayed to 

the driver at one time. As the JAMA 

Guidelines state: 

The number of letters (e.g., characters, 

kana, alphabets) displayed at a time shall not 

exceed 31,55 provided that a number such as 

‘‘120’’ or a unit such as km/h’’ is deemed to 

be a single letter irrespective of the number 

of digits. Punctuation marks are not included 

in the count of letters.56

The JAMA Guidelines are far shorter, 

and, as a result, far less detailed than 

either the Alliance or European 

Guidelines. 

Of the various driver distraction 

prevention and reduction guidelines 

that were reviewed, NHTSA has 

decided that the current version of the 

Alliance Guidelines serves as the best 

basis for the development of the NHTSA 

Guidelines. They are the most complete 

of the three guideline sets considered 

and contain far more information about 

verification procedures than do the 

European or JAMA Guidelines. There 

are only a few contradictions between 

the three sets of guidelines, with the 

principal one being the JAMA 

Guidelines previously discussed 

prohibition on performing non-driving 

related tasks while in motion. 

The Alliance and European 

Guidelines are quite similar; a device 

that meets one set of these guidelines 

will meet the other. The Japanese 

Guidelines are more restrictive—they do 

not allow quite a number of devices to 

function whenever the vehicle is in 

motion. As a result, a vehicle that 

strictly follows the JAMA Guidelines 

should meet all of the recommendations 

of both the Alliance and European 

Guidelines but not necessarily viceversa. 

When there are items contained in 

either the European or JAMA Guidelines 

that are not in the Alliance Guidelines, 

NHTSA has carefully considered them 

and included them in the NHTSA 

Guidelines when we agree with them 

(e.g., the 30 character limit in the 

NHTSA Guidelines on the amount of 

text that may be read comes from the 

JAMA Guidelines). 

As a convenience to readers, NHTSA 

has placed copies of the Alliance, 

European, and JAMA Guidelines into 

the distraction docket.57

B. Why NHTSA Is Issuing Its Own 

Guidelines for Limiting and Reducing 

Driver Distraction 

NHTSA has decided to issue its own 

guidelines for limiting and reducing 

driver distraction associated with the 

use of in-vehicle electronic devices 

while driving. Voluntary guidelines 

developed by others in the past have 

been instrumental in the development 

of these NHTSA Guidelines. The 

NHTSA Guidelines are being issued for 

the following reasons: 

• So as to have guidelines available 

for all passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, and trucks and 

buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight 

Rating (GVWR) of not more than 10,000 

pounds. 

• So as to have guidelines applicable 

to all communications, entertainment, 

information, and navigation devices 

installed in vehicles as original 

equipment. 

• So as to incorporate the latest driver 

distraction research into the guidelines. 

There has been much research on driver 

distraction in the five years since the 

Alliance Guidelines were last updated; 

NHTSA believes that it is valuable to 

incorporate the results of this recent 

research into guidelines that serve to 

reduce or prevent driver distraction 

prevention. 

• Per the Highway Safety Act of 1970, 

NHTSA is responsible for reducing 

deaths, injuries and economic losses 

resulting from motor vehicle crashes; in 

short, NHTSA is responsible for vehicle 

safety. While manufacturers also have a 

strong interest in safety, they are also 

influenced by other factors, such as 

market forces. Therefore, the NHTSA 

Guidelines will focus solely on safety 

and the safety impact of final (i.e., 

consumer-ready) products. In contrast, 

other guidelines focus more on the 

design process, which involves 

consideration of factors in addition to 

safety, and include metrics that can be 

used on prototype designs. 

• NHTSA has identified some aspects 

of the current Alliance Guidelines that 

are loosely specified or provide multiple 

compliance assessment options that 

may correspond to different levels of 

associated safety. NHTSA would like to 

specify a test procedure that is straightforward, clearly defined, and wellsubstantiated in order to aid the 

voluntary adoption of its NHTSA 

Guidelines. Minimizing the opportunity 

for variability in carrying out the test 

procedure will ensure that 

manufacturers would be able to easily 

and consistently implement the NHTSA 

Guidelines across their light vehicle 

fleets. 

Before undertaking this guideline 

effort, NHTSA met with several 

manufacturers in 2010 to determine 

how they had implemented the Alliance 

Guidelines. During these meetings, 

NHTSA learned that implementation 

varies across, and sometimes within, 

manufacturers. This information has 

been useful to NHTSA to attain a better 

understanding of the practical 

considerations and constraints facing 

manufacturers when developing vehicle 

technologies. This information has been 

taken under consideration by NHTSA 

while drafting the new NHTSA 

Guidelines. 

The NHTSA Guidelines, while 

adopting much of the content of the 

Alliance Guidelines, incorporate a 

number of changes in an effort to further 

enhance driving safety, to enhance 

guideline usability, to improve 

implementation consistency, and to 

incorporate the latest driver distraction 

research findings. The proposed NHTSA 

Guidelines and their rationales, 

including the rationale for departures 

from the Alliance Guidelines, are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11214 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

58 It could be argued that ‘‘Reading’’ generates 

high cognitive distraction. Clearly ‘‘Reading’’ 

generates a high visual load. Unfortunately, we do 

not, at this time, have the ability to measure the 

cognitive load generated by ‘‘Reading.’’ However, it 

seems reasonable that the cognitive distraction 

generated would vary depending upon what is 

being read. NHTSA believes that what are most 

commonly being read by drivers are signs or simple 

printed material that are not expected to generate 

high cognitive distraction. 

59Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 107, pp. 31663– 

31665, June 3, 2008. 

discussed in detail in later portions of 

this notice. 

C. First Phase of NHTSA’s Driver 

Distraction Guidelines Focuses on 

Original Equipment Devices With 

Visual-Manual Driver Interfaces 

As discussed in NHTSA’s Driver 

Distraction Program, NHTSA’s intent is 

to ‘‘develop voluntary guidelines for 

minimizing the distraction potential of 

in-vehicle and portable devices.’’ 

Electronic devices in a motor vehicle 

can divided into three broad classes, 

depending upon their origin. These 

devices may have been built into a 

vehicle when it is manufactured (i.e., 

original equipment devices), installed in 

a vehicle after it has been built (i.e., 

aftermarket devices), or brought into a 

vehicle (portable devices). The current 

notice only contains voluntary NHTSA 

Guidelines for visual-manual 

interactions associated with original 

equipment devices. Portable devices 

will be addressed by Phase 2 of the 

NHTSA Guidelines. These and the 

remaining phases of the NHTSA 

Guidelines are outlined in Table 2. 

As noted earlier, drivers perform tasks 

using an in-vehicle electronic device by 

interacting with the device through its 

driver interface. The driver interfaces of 

these devices can be designed to 

accommodate interactions that are 

visual-manual, auditory-vocal, or a 

combination of the two. 

The goal of the NHTSA Guidelines is 

to discourage the design of in-vehicle 

device interfaces that do not minimize 

driver distraction associated with 

secondary task performance. The 

NHTSA Guidelines specify criteria and 

a test method for assessing whether a 

secondary task performed using an invehicle device may be suitable for 

performance while driving, due to its 

minimal impact on driving performance 

and, therefore, safety. The NHTSA 

Guidelines also seek to identify 

secondary tasks that interfere with a 

driver’s ability to safely control their 

vehicle and to categorize those tasks as 

ones that are not suitable for 

performance by the driver while 

driving. 

For each of the three possible origins 

of in-vehicle electronic devices, both 

visual-manual and auditory-vocal 

interaction modes may be possible. 

Table 2 indicates the order in which 

NHTSA plans to develop its NHTSA 

Guidelines to address the different 

device origins and interfaces. 

TABLE 2—MATRIX SHOWING NHTSA DRIVER DISTRACTION GUIDELINE PHASES BASED ON DEVICE ORIGINS AND

INTERACTION TYPES

Type of interaction 

Origin of device 

Original equipment Aftermarket Portable 

Visual-Manual ......... NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines, 

Phase 1.

NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines, 

Phase 2.

NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines, 

Phase 2. 

Auditory-Vocal ......... NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines, 

Phase 3.

NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines, 

Phase 3.

NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines, 

Phase 3. 

This notice proposes Phase 1 of the 

NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines. 

NHTSA plans to issue Phase 2 

(aftermarket and portable devices) of its 

NHTSA Guidelines in 2013 and Phase 3 

(auditory-vocal interfaces) in 2014. Our 

NHTSA Guidelines are being developed 

in these phases because: 

• While some international and 

voluntary consensus standards exist that 

relate to visual-manual interfaces for invehicle devices, no similar standards for 

devices with auditory-vocal interfaces 

exist. Auditory-vocal interfaces are 

newer than are visual-manual interfaces; 

as a consequence less research has been 

performed on driver distraction while 

using auditory-vocal interfaces. 

Research is needed on such subjects as 

how to best measure the level of driver 

distraction induced when auditoryvocal interfaces are used. Based on this 

shortage of research, NHTSA intends to 

delay the extension of its NHTSA 

Guidelines to cover auditory-vocal 

interfaces until Phase 3 of guideline 

development. 

• From naturalistic driving research, 

the secondary tasks with the highest risk 

odds ratios tend to be primarily visualmanual in nature with only a relatively 

small cognitive component. Of course, 

every secondary task results in some 

cognitive load; however, tasks such as 

Reaching for a Moving Object or Eating 

require that the driver’s eyes and hands 

be used to perform non-driving tasks but 

do not require a lot of thought. It is not 

until the ninth highest risk odds ratio in 

Figure 1; Talking/Listening to a HandHeld Device that a secondary task 

appears that is heavily cognitive in 

nature.58 Furthermore, this secondary 

task’s risk odds ratio is not statistically 

significantly different from 1.00 at the 

95 percent confidence level. In fact, 

there are no secondary tasks in Figure 

1 that have risk odds ratios which are 

statistically significantly greater than 

1.00 that are primarily cognitive in 

nature. 

• There may be special challenges 

associated with guidelines for both 

aftermarket and portable devices. Given 

that for some device types the only 

substantial difference between an 

integrated and a portable version of the 

device will be the device location (fixed 

or variable), most of the NHTSA visualmanual Driver Distraction Guideline 

criteria are expected to also be 

appropriate for aftermarket and portable 

devices with visual-manual driver 

interfaces. However, NHTSA thinks that 

additional research is necessary to 

determine if there are other 

considerations for guidelines for 

aftermarket and portable devices. 

Therefore, NHTSA intends to 

implement the extension of its NHTSA 

Guidelines to cover aftermarket and 

portable devices in Phase 2 of guideline 

development. 

D. Past NHTSA Actions on Driver 

Distraction 

Before this notice, NHTSA had 

published one Federal Register notice 

that was related to driver distraction. On 

June 3, 2008, NHTSA denied 59 a 

petition from the Center for Auto Safety 

requesting that NHTSA do the 

following: 

1. Issue a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) to require that any 

personal communication systems 

integrated into a vehicle, including 

cellular phones and text messaging 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11215 

60 Ibid, P. 31664. 

systems, be inoperative when the 

transmission shift lever is in a forward 

or reverse gear. 

2. Issue an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to 

consider requiring that other integrated 

telematic systems in vehicles that 

significantly increase crash rates be 

inoperative when the transmission shift 

lever is in a forward or reverse gear. 

3. Increase efforts to support state 

programs to limit cell phone use by 

drivers in moving vehicles in the same 

manner that it supports state programs 

against drunk driving. 

Part of NHTSA’s rationale for denying 

the Center for Auto Safety petition was, 

as stated in the Federal Register notice, 

the concern that: 

If integrated cell phones and other 

telematic devices were required to be 

inoperative, drivers could instead use 

portable devices such as their regular cell 

phones.60

NHTSA remains concerned about the 

possibility of drivers increasing their 

use of portable devices due to 

restrictions being placed on integrated 

devices. Based on this concern, NHTSA 

considers it essential that guidelines for 

aftermarket and portable devices be 

developed as rapidly as feasible 

following the development of NHTSA 

Guidelines for original equipment 

devices. As shown in Table 2 and 

explained in the discussion following 

this table, the development of NHTSA 

Guidelines for aftermarket and portable 

visual-manual device interfaces (Phase 

2) is planned to begin immediately 

following the completion of the original 

equipment visual-manual NHTSA 

Guidelines (Phase 1). 

E. Challenges Relating to the 

Development of Interface Guidelines To 

Minimize Driver Distraction 

Developing guidelines for device 

driver interfaces that minimize 

distraction and its impact on driving 

performance is complicated. Research is 

ongoing to identify the best methods 

and metrics by which to measure the 

effects of distraction on driving 

performance. Even though research on 

this topic has not been completed, 

NHTSA thinks it important to be 

proactive and provide guidance on how 

manufacturers may limit the range and 

complexity of in-vehicle device tasks 

that may be considered in the future so 

as to ensure the safety of drivers and 

fellow road users. Therefore, NHTSA 

presents in this notice its current ‘‘best’’ 

proposal based on information currently 

available. 

The challenges involved in 

developing driver distraction guidelines 

and assessing whether covered devices 

meet associated criteria are many and 

non-trivial. These challenges include: 

1. Ensuring that criteria that device 

tasks should meet are rigorously 

developed, validated, and substantiated 

by experimental data. 

2. Developing Guideline criteria that 

are generalized to all device types 

covered by these NHTSA Guidelines, 

including a wide range of existing 

devices and tasks as well as ones that 

may appear in future vehicles but have 

not yet been conceived. 

3. Identifying sensitive metrics for 

measuring distraction and the most 

appropriate characteristics of the sample 

population used to assess the metrics. 

4. Developing a test scenario for use 

in assessing the degree to which invehicle device tasks meet Guideline 

criteria that simulates the demand of 

actual driving under suitable and 

‘‘representative’’ conditions. 

5. Developing a repeatable and welldefined test protocol for use in assessing 

the degree to which in-vehicle device 

tasks meet Guideline criteria that 

implement the chosen driving scenario. 

6. Formulating a tightly specified task 

definition to ensure that similar tasks 

are assessed for their ability to meet 

Guideline criteria in a similar manner 

by all relevant manufacturers. 

7. Establishing criteria for the sample 

of experimental subjects to be tested 

using the test protocol (i.e., number of 

test participants; test participant age 

ranges, experience, etc.). 

8. Assessing whether minimizing total 

eyes-off-road time spent on a given 

secondary task actually results in an 

overall reduction in the total amount of 

eyes-off-road time spent on all 

secondary tasks, especially as the 

number of secondary tasks multiply 

with the introduction of more and more 

entertainment, communication and 

information devices, and capabilities. 

Each of these challenges is elaborated 

upon in the following paragraphs. 

1. The Guideline and task 

performance criteria that devices should 

meet need to be rigorously developed, 

valid, and substantiated by 

experimental data. While driver 

distraction is a topic for which most of 

the general public has opinions, 

decisions relating to what tasks a driver 

should be free to perform while driving 

should be made based on objective data. 

Having a data-based means of 

substantiating distraction guidelines 

provides a firm foundation to guarantee 

that measurable safety improvements 

are actually achieved. 

2. Developing appropriate Guideline 

criteria for the broad range of current 

and future device task types and input 

methods is highly challenging. To date, 

a variety of manual means through 

which drivers can make control inputs 

to in-vehicle systems have been used. 

NHTSA Guidelines for systems with 

visual-manual interaction means should 

cover all types of traditional input 

controls, touch screens, and means of 

providing feedback to the driver. 

Beyond control input method, the types 

of tasks available vary and the extent of 

electronic device related tasks that may 

become available in future vehicles 

cannot be known at this time. For these 

reasons, establishing guidelines that 

will remain relevant in the long-term is 

a challenging issue. 

3. Various metrics for characterizing 

distraction’s impact on driving 

performance have been developed, but 

are still being debated within the 

research community and industry. 

Metric sensitivity and the relationship 

between the metrics and crash risk are 

topics of much contention. Some 

metrics require testing large numbers of 

test participants in order to achieve 

sufficient statistical power to allow 

significant effects to be observed, if they 

exist. Acceptance criteria need to be 

selected and justified based on safety 

data. 

4. A test scenario that simulates the 

demands of actual driving under 

suitable and ‘‘representative’’ conditions 

needs to be defined in order to provide 

a baseline for use in measuring the 

impact of distracted driving. It should 

be insensitive to the dynamics of the 

vehicles being tested so as to minimize 

the need for complex and expensive 

vehicle characterization testing. 

The amount of interference created by 

secondary task performance while 

driving is dependent on the complexity 

of the driving scenario in which the 

secondary task is performed. Drivers 

will have more spare attentional 

capacity that may be used to perform 

secondary tasks in less complex traffic 

conditions than they would in more 

complex traffic conditions. Therefore, 

secondary task performance would be 

expected to impact driving performance 

less in a low complexity driving 

situation than in a high complexity one. 

Choosing the most appropriate level of 

driving scenario complexity for 

assessment of distraction effects is 

difficult and important. 

5. A test procedure must be developed 

to be able to assess adherence to the 

driver distraction guidelines criteria. 

While typical compliance testing 

measures the effects of a known 

magnitude and type of stimulus on a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11216 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

61 Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, 

‘‘Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification 

Procedures on Driver-Interactions with Advanced 

In-Vehicle Information and Communication 

Systems,’’ June 26, 2006 version, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, Washington, DC. 

specific vehicle design’s motion or 

structural integrity, a test of driver 

distraction measures the effects of a 

stimulus, the magnitude of which is 

difficult to quantify, on the ability of a 

non-standardized and variable system 

(i.e., the driver) to control a vehicle 

safely. Given that the population of 

drivers varies widely in a number of 

aspects including driving skill, multitasking ability, attentional focus 

capacity, and propensity to perform 

non-driving tasks while driving, the 

sample of drivers needed for a test to 

determine adherence to the NHTSA 

Guidelines would need to be much 

larger than the sample size of one 

typically associated with a vehicle 

performance compliance test. 

Appropriate data reduction methods 

and tools also must be developed. 

6. In order to have a standardized test 

for measuring the impact of secondary 

task performance on driving 

performance and safety, the test criteria 

must be well-specified. In particular, a 

clear definition of a ‘‘task’’ must be 

asserted to specify the series of driver 

actions needed to perform a secondary 

task that should be assessed for 

adherence to the NHTSA Guidelines’ 

criteria. Unclear task specifications can 

result in inconsistent guideline 

adherence test performance throughout 

the industry. While the definition of 

task used in the Alliance Guidelines is 

short and conceptually clear, it can be 

difficult to determine for real devices 

whether something is one task or 

several. This is particularly challenging 

to do for devices and tasks that have not 

yet been developed. 

7. Characteristics of the sample of test 

participants to be subjected to the test 

protocol (number of test participants; 

test participant criteria including age, 

experience, conflicts of interest, etc.) 

need to be identified. NHTSA is 

particularly worried about prior test 

participant experience with the devices 

that are being evaluated. Devices are 

frequently far more difficult to use (and 

hence, distracting) when drivers are not 

familiar with them. However, the vast 

majority of device usage is by drivers 

who use a device daily and are highly 

familiar with their operation. 

8. It must be determined whether 

minimizing the total eyes-off-road time 

spent on a given secondary task actually 

results in an overall reduction in the 

total amount of eyes-off-road time spent 

on all secondary tasks. This is 

particularly important as the number of 

non-driving secondary tasks seemingly 

multiplies as more entertainment, 

communication and information 

devices, and capabilities are introduced 

into vehicles. (Are the number and 

variety of secondary tasks in fact 

multiplying or does it just seem that 

way?) Many people have speculated that 

making it safer for drivers to perform 

secondary tasks while driving will 

encourage drivers to perform more 

secondary tasks while driving. This is 

another application of risk homeostasis 

theory; people have an acceptable level 

of risk that they are comfortable with 

and they compensate for reductions in 

risk by taking on additional risks so as 

to maintain a relatively constant level of 

risk. 

There is undoubtedly a certain 

amount of truth to risk homeostasis 

theory with regard to driving safety. For 

example, over the last 50 years, 

numerous safety improvements have 

been implemented in motor vehicles. 

Risk homeostasis theory predicts that 

drivers would drive more dangerously 

so as to maintain their overall 

acceptable level of risk. One way to do 

this is by driving faster. There is some 

evidence that this has happened. Speed 

limits have been increased. While 

drivers used to speed when the national 

speed limit was 55 mph, they still speed 

today when interstate highway speed 

limits have been increased to 65 to 75 

mph. However, there is a clearly 

decreasing trend in the number of motor 

vehicle fatalities, especially when they 

are normalized by the number of vehicle 

miles traveled. 

What seems to have happened in the 

past is that safety improvements have 

been partially, but not totally, offset by 

riskier driving behavior (frequently by 

increases in driving speed). However, 

substantial improvement in safety has 

remained, even after the changes in 

driver behavior. True risk homeostasis 

did not occur, but we did see behavioral 

adaptation as drivers partially 

compensated for the decrease in risk. 

NHTSA anticipates that similar 

changes in driver behavior may be seen 

due to these NHTSA Guidelines. Some 

portion of the otherwise expected 

improvement in safety and reduction in 

driver workload associated with task 

performance may be used by drivers to 

perform more secondary tasks. 

However, there should also be an 

improvement in overall driving safety. 

While NHTSA’s primary focus is 

driving safety, other things are also 

important to drivers. Drivers, like any 

other category of people, will seek to 

have their personal needs met. Drivers 

are not forced to perform additional 

secondary tasks just because they have 

a vehicle designed for safe in-vehicle 

secondary task performance. Drivers 

perform these additional secondary 

tasks to meet their own needs. Even 

though some portion of the expected 

improvement in safety may be negated 

by the performance of more secondary 

tasks, the overall quality of life will be 

improved for drivers and other road 

users. 

VI. Justification for Specific Portions of 

NHTSA Guidelines for Reducing Driver 

Distraction During Interactions With 

In-Vehicle Systems 

A. Intended Vehicle Types 

These proposed NHTSA Guidelines 

are appropriate for all passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, and 

trucks and buses with a GVWR of not 

more than 10,000 pounds. These are 

what NHTSA has traditionally called 

‘‘light vehicles.’’ This category of 

vehicles has been the primary focus of 

NHTSA’s past driver distraction 

research. Additionally, light vehicles 

have been a major platform for the push 

to incorporate built-in advanced 

technology, entertainment, and 

communications functions into 

vehicles. Focusing on this vehicle 

category serves as a step towards 

ensuring that the increasing features 

being offered in all vehicles do not 

produce an overwhelmingly distracting 

in-vehicle environment for the driver 

that can degrade safety. For these 

reasons, NHTSA has focused its 

distraction research on light vehicles. 

While much of what NHTSA has 

learned about light vehicle driver 

distraction undoubtedly applies to other 

vehicle types, additional research would 

be needed to assess whether all aspects 

of these NHTSA Guidelines are 

appropriate for application to those 

vehicle types. 

B. Existing Alliance Guidelines Provide 

a Starting Point 

The NHTSA Guidelines derive in part 

from the document ‘‘Statement of 

Principles, Criteria, and Verification 

Procedures on Driver Interactions with 

Advanced In-Vehicle Information and 

Communication Systems including 2006 

Updated Sections’’ that was developed 

by the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturer’s Driver-Focus Working 

Group (frequently referred to as the 

Alliance Guidelines).61 Portions of the 

Alliance Guidelines have been carried 

over to the NHTSA Guidelines without 

changes. When the NHTSA Guidelines 

differ from the Alliance Guidelines, it is 

either due to recent research that has 

been performed since the development 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11217 

62P. 13, Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, 

‘‘Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification 

Procedures on Driver-Interactions with Advanced 

In-Vehicle Information and Communication 

Systems,’’ June 26, 2006 version, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, Washington, DC. 

63 Ibid, P. 14. 

64 Ibid, P. 37. 

65 Ibid, P. 37. 

66 Ibid, P. 79. 

67 Ibid. 

68 Ibid. 

69 Ibid. 

70 Ibid. 

71 Ibid. 72 80th Congress, Statute 718. 

of the Alliance Guidelines or because 

NHTSA believes that the changes made 

will increase the safety of the motoring 

public. 

A number of the Alliance Guideline 

principles are not included in the 

NHTSA Guidelines. While NHTSA 

generally agrees with the excluded 

principles, NHTSA thinks that these 

principles are not appropriate to include 

in these NHTSA Guidelines. 

The excluded principles, and their 

reasons for exclusion, are as follows: 

• Principle 1.1: The system should be 

located and fitted in accordance with 

relevant regulations, standards, and the 

vehicle and component manufacturers’ 

instructions for installing the systems in 

vehicles.62

NHTSA assumes that vehicle 

manufacturers will follow this principle 

when deciding where to locate devices 

within their vehicles. However, 

verification by NHTSA that devices 

meet this principle is difficult. The 

Alliance Guidelines verification section 

for this principle does not offer much 

guidance; it merely states: 

Design to conform and validate by 

appropriate means as may be specified by 

relevant standards or regulations or 

manufacturer-specific instruction.63

As discussed above, NHTSA intends 

to monitor whether vehicles meet these 

NHTSA Guidelines to help determine 

their effectiveness and sufficiency. 

Accordingly, the NHTSA Guidelines do 

not include principles for which there is 

no reasonable method for NHTSA to 

assess Guideline adherence. It is hard 

for NHTSA to do this, at least for some 

devices, without having access to 

information known to the manufacturer 

but not necessarily to NHTSA. For these 

reasons, we do not believe it is feasible 

for NHTSA to develop the methods 

needed to monitor adherence to this 

principle. 

• Principle 1.5: Visual displays should be 

designed and installed to reduce or minimize 

glare and reflections.64

Vehicle manufacturers report that 

they follow this principle when 

installing when deciding where to 

locate devices within their vehicles. 

Additionally, verification by NHTSA 

that devices meet this principle is 

difficult. The Alliance Guidelines 

verification section for this principle 

again does not offer much guidance; it 

merely states: 

Verification should be done by appropriate 

means (e.g., analysis, inspection, 

demonstration, or test).65

Furthermore, glare and reflections on 

device interfaces only indirectly 

contribute to driver distraction (and 

thereby affect safety). Finally, glare and 

reflection reduction and minimization is 

a complex problem that is best left to 

the vehicle designer. For all of these 

reasons, it does not seem feasible for 

NHTSA at this time to develop the 

complicated methods needed to monitor 

adherence to this principle. 

• Principle 5.1: The system should have 

adequate instructions for the driver covering 

proper use and safety-relevant aspects of 

installation and maintenance.66

• Principle 5.2: Safety instructions should 

be correct and simple.67

• Principle 5.3: System instructions should 

be in a language or form designed to be 

understood by drivers in accordance with 

mandated or accepted regional practice.68

• Principle 5.4: The instructions should 

distinguish clearly between those aspects of 

the system that are intended for use by the 

driver while driving, and those aspects (e.g. 

specific functions, menus, etc) that are not 

intended to be used while driving.69

All four of these principles relate to 

the adequacy of the instructions that are 

provided to the driver. NHTSA does not 

have an objective means to determine 

instruction adequacy for a potentially 

broad range of device instructions. 

Therefore, we have excluded these four 

principles from the NHTSA Guidelines. 

• Principle 5.5: Product information 

should make it clear if special skills are 

required to use the system or if the product 

is unsuitable for particular users. 70

• Principle 5.6: Representations of system 

use (e.g. descriptions, photographs, and 

sketches) provided to the customer with the 

system should neither create unrealistic 

expectations on the part of potential users, 

nor encourage unsafe or illegal use.71

Both of these principles relate to the 

appropriateness of content in 

information about the device provided 

to the driver by the vehicle 

manufacturer. NHTSA does not believe 

that it is appropriate for NHTSA to 

determine the appropriateness of 

content in information provided to the 

driver by the vehicle manufacturer. 

Therefore, we have excluded both of 

these principles from the NHTSA 

Guidelines. 

C. International Harmonization and 

Voluntary Consensus Standards 

NHTSA is aware of the fact that since 

vehicles designed in many countries are 

sold in the United States and that 

vehicles designed in the United States 

are sold in many countries, motor 

vehicle manufacturers’ desire 

internationally harmonized regulations. 

Unfortunately, comprehensive, 

internationally-harmonized, driver 

distraction prevention and reduction 

guidelines do not yet exist. (Although 

the high degree of similarity between 

the Alliance and European Guidelines is 

a good start towards international 

harmonization, NHTSA would like to 

see these guidelines made more 

stringent so as to better protect the 

safety of the motoring public.) Where 

international and voluntary consensus 

standards exist that are useful for 

portions of the NHTSA Guidelines, they 

have been carefully considered and 

utilized when appropriate. Specifically, 

for performing occlusion testing, 

NHTSA has used International 

Standards Organization (ISO) 

International Standard 16673:2007, 

’’Road Vehicles—Ergonomic Aspects of 

Transport Information and Control 

Systems—Occlusion Method to Assess 

Visual Demand due to the use of InVehicle Systems.’’ Additionally, 

NHTSA has used SAE Surface Vehicle 

Recommended Practice J941–2010, 

‘‘Motor Vehicle Drivers’ Eye Locations,’’ 

published March 16, 2010, to determine 

the driver’s eye point when determining 

the downward viewing angle to device 

displays. 

NHTSA hopes that, in the future, it 

will be possible to develop the NHTSA 

Guidelines into an internationally 

harmonized practice. 

The remainder of this section consists 

of a detailed discussion and justification 

of major items in the NHTSA 

Guidelines. 

D. Statement of General Responsibilities 

New in-vehicle technologies are being 

developed at an extremely rapid pace. 

NHTSA does not have the resources to 

evaluate the safety implications of every 

new device before it is introduced into 

vehicles. Such a practice would 

dramatically slow the rate of 

introduction of new technology into 

vehicles. Finally, and most importantly, 

adopting such a practice is unnecessary 

in light of the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966’s 72

requirement that each manufacturer 

bears primary responsibility for 

products that they produce that are in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11218 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

73Executive Order, ‘‘Federal Leadership on 

Reducing Text Messaging While Driving,’’ October 

1, 2009, retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

the_press_office/Executive-Order-FederalLeadership-on-Reducing-Text-Messaging-whileDriving/ on March 22, 2011. 

74The U.S. Department of Transportation’s 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA) and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration (PHMSA) use a slightly 

different definition of driving. Their definition 

limits driving to operating a commercial motor 

vehicle on a highway. NHTSA is basing its 

definition of driving upon the one contained in the 

Executive Order because NHTSA is concerned with 

all vehicles operating on any type of roadway. 

75Without the addition of expensive equipment 

vehicle manufacturers cannot know when the 

driver has pulled over to the side of, or off of, an 

active roadway and has halted in a location where 

the vehicle can safely remain stationary. For 

automatic transmission-equipped vehicles, the 

vehicle manufacturer can determine the position of 

the gear shift (this information is available on the 

Controller Area Network Bus (CANbus) for all 

modern vehicles). So operationally, NHTSA is 

equating placing the vehicle in ‘‘park’’ with ‘‘the 

vehicle has halted in a location where the vehicle 

can safely remain stationary.’’ For manual 

transmission vehicles, placing the vehicle in ‘‘park’’ 

is replaced by placing the vehicle in ‘‘neutral’’ with 

the parking brake on. Again, these are things that 

the vehicle manufacturer easily determine 

motor vehicles. A manufacturer that 

produces a vehicle or item of motor 

vehicle equipment that either does not 

comply with the FMVSSs or contains a 

defect creating an unreasonable risk to 

safety must recall the vehicle or 

equipment and provide the owner a 

remedy. 49 U.S.C. 30118–30120. 

Accordingly, a section has been 

included in the NHTSA Guidelines 

emphasizing that, to protect the general 

welfare of the people of the United 

States; manufacturers are responsible for 

refraining from introducing new invehicle devices that create unreasonable 

risks to the safety of the driving public. 

E. Scope—Devices for Which the 

NHTSA Guidelines Are Appropriate 

The NHTSA Guidelines are 

appropriate for all information, 

navigation, communications, and 

entertainment systems integrated into 

the vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer. 

Note that, unlike the Alliance 

Guidelines, these NHTSA Guidelines 

are considered to be appropriate for 

both conventional and advanced 

varieties of information, navigation, 

communications, and entertainment 

systems. 

The NHTSA Guidelines are not 

appropriate for collision warning or 

vehicle control systems. These systems 

are intended to aid the driver in 

controlling the vehicle and avoiding 

crashes and, therefore, are justified in 

capturing the driver’s attention. The 

purpose of collision warning systems, in 

particular, is to alert the driver quickly 

to an unsafe condition and motivate the 

driver to make control inputs in an 

effort to avoid a crash. The idea of 

minimizing distraction stemming from 

this type of system is in conflict with 

their purpose—providing safety 

warnings to inattentive drivers. 

In addition, other conventional 

controls and displays such as heatingventilation-air conditioning (HVAC), 

instrument panel gauges and telltales, 

etc., are also out-of-scope for the 

NHTSA Guidelines. This is because 

operating vehicle control systems and 

looking at the related displays are part 

of the primary driving task, and are 

therefore not considered a distraction. 

Furthermore, attempting to include 

these devices in the scope of these 

NHTSA Guidelines could result in 

conflicts with either current or possible 

future Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards. 

F. Definition of a Task 

NHTSA tasked the Virginia Tech 

Transportation Institute (VTTI) to 

examine the Alliance Guideline’s 

existing definition of a task to assess 

whether improvements to the definition 

could be made. In addition to reviewing 

the Alliance Guidelines, VTTI 

interviewed nine outside experts from 

academia, government, and industry 

about their use, and possible 

improvements to, the Alliance 

Guideline’s definition. 

VTTI’s interviews found that experts 

were generally satisfied with the 

Alliance Guideline’s definition of a task 

but believed that it could use some 

clarifications. Based on their selfreporting, the experts were generally 

using the Alliance Guideline’s 

definition of a task consistently except 

for differences as to the precise start and 

end points of a task. These differences 

could affect whether a task meets the 

acceptance criteria for assessing 

whether a secondary task performed 

using an in-vehicle device may be 

suitable for performance while driving, 

due to its minimal impact on driving 

performance and, therefore, safety. 

Additional details regarding this VTTI 

expert panel effort will be summarized 

in a NHTSA report to be released in 

2012. 

One VTTI recommendation that has 

been adopted in the NHTSA Guidelines 

is to emphasize that only tasks that can 

be reasonably subjected to a test should 

be subjected to a test, i.e., do not test a 

task that is unbounded in duration and 

do not test a task that has no measurable 

magnitude or dose. Therefore, VTTI 

recommended that NHTSA refer to tasks 

in its NHTSA Guidelines as Testable 

Tasks. These Testable Tasks have well 

defined points at which the Start of Data 

Collection and End of Data Collection 

occur, which should resolve the 

differences seen between various 

experts on this issue of task start and 

end points. 

Finally, VTTI recommended that 

NHTSA provide additional explanatory 

information and examples about 

Testable Task definitions. This 

information will be provided in a 

forthcoming NHTSA Technical Report. 

G. Definition of Lock Out 

To achieve the purpose of the NHTSA 

Guidelines, tasks that that do not meet 

the guideline criteria (or devices that are 

inherently distracting such as fullmotion video displays) should be 

disabled so that they will not be 

accessible (i.e., be ‘‘locked out’’) to the 

driver while ‘‘driving’’ a motor vehicle. 

On October 1, 2009, President Obama 

issued an Executive Order, ‘‘Federal 

Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging 

While Driving,’’ 73 that instructed 

Federal employees and contractors not 

to perform text messaging while driving 

a United States Government owned 

vehicle, while driving their personal 

vehicle on official, United States 

Government, business, or while driving 

and using a United States Government 

owned electronic device. The Executive 

Order defines driving as follows: 

‘‘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.74

NHTSA is proposing to make its 

definition of ‘‘driving’’ in the context of 

these NHTSA Guidelines consistent 

with the Executive Order’s definition of 

‘‘driving.’’ However, because these 

NHTSA Guidelines are meant for 

vehicle manufacturers designing invehicle integrated electronic device 

interfaces, the agency is proposing a 

definition that is framed in terms of the 

status of the vehicle rather than the 

conduct of the driver. Specifically, the 

NHTSA Guidelines recommend 

disabling unreasonably distracting tasks 

and/or devices while driving. For the 

NHTSA Guidelines, ‘‘while driving’’ is 

defined as any time the vehicle’s engine 

is turned on and its transmission is not 

in ‘‘Park’’ (for automatic transmission 

vehicles; for manual transmission 

vehicles this changes to when the 

transmission is not in ‘‘Neutral’’ or the 

parking brake is ‘‘Off’’).75

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11219 

(available from the CANbus) and do not add extra 

cost. 

76 ‘‘Strategies for Reducing Driver Distraction 

from In-Vehicle Telematics Devices: A Discussion 

Document,’’ prepared by the Standards Research 

and Development Branch of the Road Safety and 

Motor Vehicle Regulations Directorate of Transport 

Canada, TP 14133 E, April 2003. 

H. Per Se Lock Outs 

The NHTSA Guidelines contain a 

recommended list of ‘‘per se’’ lock outs 

for in-vehicle devices tasks that are 

considered unsafe for performance by 

the driver while driving. Per se lock 

outs are ones based on either public 

policy or law. They are meant for invehicle device tasks that are either 

obviously inappropriate for performance 

by a vehicle driver while driving or ones 

(such as photographic or graphical 

moving or still images not related to 

driving) for which the task-based test 

paradigm used to determine the 

acceptability of a task for performance 

while driving will not work due to the 

task being unbounded in some aspect. 

After much consideration, NHTSA 

has decided to propose the following 

list of tasks considered to be suitable for 

lock out on a per se basis: 

• Displaying photographic or 

graphical moving visual images not 

related to driving. This would include 

things such as video phone calls and 

other forms of video communication, as 

well as pre-recorded video footage, and 

television. Images considered to be 

related to driving include information 

that is useful in monitoring vehicle 

occupant status, maneuvering the 

vehicle, or assisting in route planning. 

Short, scrolling lists under the control of 

the driver (e.g., navigation system 

destinations) should not be significantly 

distracting provided the information is 

presented in accordance with these 

NHTSA Guidelines. A visual image 

depicting blind zone areas around the 

vehicle would be considered 

information related to the driving task. 

Also, weather information that relates to 

the vicinity of the car, intended route 

information (such as a closed exit), or 

emergency information (such as the 

approach of an emergency response 

vehicle) are all considered to be 

information related to driving. 

• Displaying photographic or 

graphical static visual images not 

related to driving. This would include 

album art and personal photos, among 

other things. 

• Automatically scrolling text. 

• Manual text entry (e.g., drafting text 

messages, keyboard-based text entry). 

The driver should not input more than 

6 button or key presses during the 

performance of a task. This limit is 

based on an assumed driver eyes-offroad time of 2.0 seconds per button or 

key press and NHTSA’s maximum 

permitted total eyes-off-road time for a 

task of 12.0 seconds. 

• Reading more than 30 characters, 

not including punctuation marks, of 

visually presented text (a number, no 

matter how many digits it contains, and 

a units designation (e.g., mpg) each 

count as only one character). This 

character limit is taken from the JAMA 

Guidelines and is intended to prevent 

such tasks as reading text messages, 

reading electronic books, and manual 

Internet browsing. As pointed out by 

Transport Canada: 

The JAMA Guidelines are currently the 

most demanding recommendations set by the 

industry internationally.76

NHTSA believes that all of these 

activities are either obviously 

inappropriate for performance by a 

vehicle driver (e.g., manual text entry 

while driving) or ones for which the 

task-based test paradigm used to 

determine lock outs on a task-by-task 

basis will not work (e.g., viewing video 

images not related to driving, viewing 

static images not related to driving, and 

automatically scrolling text) or both 

(e.g., reading more than 30 characters of 

visually presented text). 

Rearview images presented for the 

purpose of aiding a driver to detect 

obstacles in the vehicle’s path during a 

backing maneuver should not be locked 

out when presented in accordance with 

the allowable circumstances specified in 

FMVSS No. 111 since this information 

is driving related and for the purposes 

of improving safety. 

I. Steering Wheel-Mounted Control 

Restrictions 

The NHTSA Guidelines recommend 

that all device functions accessed via 

visual-manual interaction by the driver 

should be operable by using, at most, 

one of the driver’s hands in order to be 

considered suitable for performance 

while driving. 

For device controls located on the 

steering wheel, the Alliance Guidelines 

state that no device tasks should require 

simultaneous manual inputs from both 

hands, except in the following 

condition: one of the two hands 

maintains only a single finger input 

(e.g., analogous to pressing ‘‘shift’’ on a 

keyboard). After due consideration, 

NHTSA has decided that it is not 

comfortable with this exception. 

NHTSA is concerned that tasks that 

require the simultaneous use of both 

hands, even one for which only a single 

finger input is required from one hand, 

will result in an unsafe situation. 

Therefore, the NHTSA Guidelines 

recommend against driver interfaces 

that utilize this special case of twohanded control. 

J. Maximum Downward Viewing Angle 

The NHTSA Guidelines recommend 

that the each device’s active display 

area be located as close as practicable to 

the driver’s forward line of sight. They 

include a specific recommendation for 

the maximum downward viewing angle 

to the geometric center of each display. 

To determine a display’s downward 

viewing angle, a nominal driver eye 

point must be selected. The NHTSA 

Guidelines recommend that the nominal 

driver eye point be that contained in the 

March 2010 revision of SAE Surface 

Vehicle Recommended Practice J941 

‘‘Motor Vehicle Drivers’ Eye Locations.’’ 

Each device’s display(s) should be 

mounted in a position where the 

downward viewing angle, measured at 

the geometric center of each active 

display area, is less than at least one of 

the following two angles: 

• The 2D Maximum Downward 

Angle, or 

• The 3D Maximum Downward 

Angle. 

The 2D Maximum Downward Angle 

is equal to: 

• 30.00 degrees for a vehicle with the 

height of the nominal driver eye point 

less than or equal to 1700 millimeters 

above the ground. 

• Given by the following equation for 

nominal driver eye point heights greater 

than 1700 millimeters above the ground: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11220 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

77 Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, 

‘‘Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification 

Procedures on Driver-Interactions With Advanced 

In-Vehicle Information and Communication 

Systems,’’ June 26, 2006 version, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, Washington, DC, P. 38. 78 Ibid, P. 39. 

These recommendations for the 

maximum display downward viewing 

angle are the same as those contained in 

the Alliance Guidelines except that the 

nominal driver eye point is slightly 

different. The Alliance Guidelines set 

the nominal driver eye point at the 

point specified in the June 1997 revision 

of SAE Surface Vehicle Recommended 

Practice J941 ‘‘Motor Vehicle Drivers’ 

Eye Locations.’’ The Alliance 

Guidelines then add 8.4 mm to the 

height of the driver’s nominal eye point. 

The driver’s eye point location used by 

the NHTSA Guidelines is close to that 

used by the Alliance Guidelines for 

typical seat back angles. Therefore, this 

change is not expected to have any 

effects on the stringency of the NHTSA 

Guidelines compared to the Alliance 

Guidelines. The only reason for making 

this change is to avoid using an older 

version of an SAE standard when a 

newer version has already been 

adopted. 

K. Tests Considered To Determine What 

Tasks Should Be Accessible While 

Driving 

During development of the NHTSA 

Guidelines for visual-manual interfaces, 

the Agency considered seven test 

protocols and sets of acceptance criteria 

for determining whether performance of 

a task while driving is unreasonably 

distracting and should be locked out. 

This section will discuss the origins of 

these seven test protocols and sets of 

acceptance criteria. The subsequent 

section will discuss which of these test 

protocols and criteria NHTSA prefers 

for use in determining whether a task is 

unreasonably distracting. 

Several of the candidate test protocols 

and sets of acceptance criteria were 

taken from the Alliance Guidelines. The 

Alliance Guidelines contain two 

alternatives for determining whether a 

task is unreasonably distracting for 

drivers while driving. These alternatives 

are discussed under Principle 2.1 of the 

Alliance Guidelines: 

Systems with visual displays should be 

designed such that the driver can complete 

the desired task with sequential glances that 

are brief enough not to adversely affect 

driving.77

The Alliance Guideline’s Alternative 

A reads: 

A visual or visual-manual task intended for 

use by a driver while the vehicle is in motion 

should be designed to the following criteria: 

A1. Single glance durations generally 

should not exceed 2 seconds; and 

A2. Task completion should require no 

more than 20 seconds of total glance time to 

display(s) and controls.78

The Alliance Guidelines include the 

following three verification procedures 

for Alternative A: 

1. Eye Tracker Measurement. An eye 

tracker is used to measure the number 

and length of glances to the device 

while performing a task while driving 

either in a driving simulator, on a test 

track, or on an actual roadway using a 

standard driving scenario. 

2. Video Recording of Test 

Participant’s Eyes/Face. Post-testing, 

video of the test participant’s eyes and 

face is reviewed and the number and 

length of glances to the device while 

performing a task while driving either in 

a driving simulator, on a test track, or 

on an actual roadway using a standard 

driving scenario is determined. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2EN24FE12.058</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11221 

79 Ibid, p. 39. 

80Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Parmer, E., 

Domeyer, J., Martin, J., and Mazzae, E. N., 

‘‘Developing a Test to Measure Distraction Potential 

of In-Vehicle Information System Tasks in 

Production Vehicles,’’ DOT HS 811 463, November 

2011. 

3. Occlusion Testing. Test participants 

perform the secondary task (but not the 

driving task) while undergoing 

alternating periods of time when they 

can and cannot see. The periods of time 

when they can and cannot see are 

generated either by occlusion goggles or 

some other means such as an opaque 

shutter that is placed and removed 

periodically from in front of the test 

participants’ eyes. When performing 

occlusion testing, the Alliance 

Guidelines reduce the maximum 

permitted single glance durations to 1.5 

seconds (forced by the occlusion cycle 

time) and the maximum permitted total 

glance time to 15 seconds. Note that the 

Alliance Guidelines occlusion testing 

technique uses a different occlusion 

cycle time (1.5 seconds open/1.0 second 

closed) than that called for by ISO 

International Standard 16673:2007, 

‘‘Road Vehicles—Ergonomic Aspects of 

Transport Information and Control 

Systems—Occlusion Method To Assess 

Visual Demand due to the use of InVehicle Systems’’ (1.5 seconds open/1.5 

seconds closed). 

In developing these Guidelines, 

NHTSA considered the Alliance 

Principle 2.1 Alternative A techniques 

for determining whether a task is 

unreasonably distracting to be 

performed by drivers while driving. For 

test participant and other road user 

safety reasons, NHTSA has decided to 

recommend that NHTSA Guideline 

testing for the purposes of determining 

whether a task is suitable for 

performance while driving should not 

be performed on either test tracks or 

public roadways. NHTSA’s fear is that, 

if such testing were performed on either 

test tracks or public roadways, it might 

be discovered that a task is 

unreasonably distracting by having a 

crash occur. Therefore, the NHTSA 

Guidelines suggest limiting testing to 

that performed in driving simulators, 

vehicle mockups, or similar, nondangerous, testing venues. 

NHTSA considered three test 

protocols and sets of acceptance criteria 

for determining whether a task is too 

distracting to be performed by drivers 

while driving that were based on 

Alliance Principle 2.1 Alternative A. For 

the purposes of this notice, Alliance 

Alternative A Verification Option 1, Eye 

Tracker Measurement, and Verification 

Option 2, Video Recording of Test 

Participant’s Eyes/Face were considered 

together by NHTSA as Option EGDS: 

Eye Glance Testing Using a Driving 

Simulator. Alliance Alternative A 

Verification Option 3, Testing using 

Occlusion, was considered by NHTSA 

as Option OCC: Occlusion Testing. 

Additionally, NHTSA considered a 

third verification option that is a variant 

of the Alliance Alternative A 

techniques, Option STEP: Step 

Counting. 

The idea behind Option STEP: Step 

Counting is to first perform a detailed 

task analysis of the task under 

consideration on the device being 

studied. After the detailed task analysis 

has decomposed the task into elemental 

components, a number of ‘‘steps’’ are 

assigned to each elemental component. 

Tasks that require more than a set 

number of steps are considered to be too 

distracting to be performed by drivers 

while driving. 

The Alliance Guideline’s Alternative 

B reads: 

Alternatively, the impact of a devicerelated visual or visual-manual task on 

driving safety can be assessed directly by 

measuring concurrent driving performance 

under dynamic conditions and relating it to 

driving performance under specified 

reference conditions. The influence of such 

a secondary task shall not be greater than that 

of a scientifically-accepted reference task in 

terms of: 

B1. Lateral position control: Number of 

lane exceedances observed during secondary 

task execution should not be higher than the 

number of lane exceedances observed while 

performing one or more reference tasks (e.g., 

manual radio tuning) under standard test 

conditions (e.g., same drivers, driving 

scenario) replicating routine driving tasks; 

and 

B2. Following headway: Car following 

headway variability observed during 

secondary task execution should not be 

worse than car following headway observed 

while performing one or more reference tasks 

under standard test conditions (e.g., same 

drivers, same driving scenario) replicating 

routine driving tasks. This measure is 

influenced by speed changes of preceding 

traffic or lane changes of other vehicles.79

For Alliance Principle 2.1 Alternative 

B, the recommended Alliance reference 

task is radio tuning. This task (which 

will be referred to as manual radio 

tuning) does not use a preset button to 

switch to a desired radio station. 

Manual radio tuning consists of first 

toggling betweens bands (AM to FM or 

vice versa) and then using the tuning 

controls to select a station at a specified 

frequency. 

Alliance Principle 2.1 Alternative B 

consists of performing a task while 

driving either in a driving simulator, on 

the test track, or on an actual roadway 

using a standard driving scenario. 

However, for previously discussed 

reasons of safety, the NHTSA 

Guidelines research limit testing for this 

alternative to driving simulators. 

NHTSA considered two test protocols 

and sets of acceptance criteria for 

determining whether a task is too 

distracting to be performed by drivers 

while driving that were based on 

Alliance Alternative B. These were 

Option DS–BM: Driving Test Protocol 

with Benchmark and Option DS–FC: 

Driving Test Protocol with Fixed 

Acceptance Criteria. Option DS–BM is 

based on the test protocols used by 

Alliance member companies when 

performing Alternative B testing and 

uses, as its name implies, radio tuning 

as its reference task. 

One concern with Alliance’s 

implementation of the radio tuning 

reference task is that it is insufficiently 

specific to prevent designers from 

developing radios that are more difficult 

for drivers to tune. While the Alliance 

has told NHTSA that they intended the 

reference radio to be representative of a 

1980’s production radio, the Guideline 

text lacks the detail needed to ensure a 

fixed-difficulty reference task. As a 

result, some designers may interpret the 

Alliance Guidelines to permit more 

complicated radios to be used, thereby 

increasing the difficulty of the reference 

task and allowing more complex 

secondary tasks to meet the benchmark 

acceptance criteria. To better achieve 

the goal of a fixed-difficulty reference 

task, NHTSA considered a similar 

option that instead uses fixed driving 

performance values for lane 

exceedances and headway variability. 

This testing option is called Option DS– 

FC: Driving Test Protocol with Fixed 

Acceptance Criteria. 

Over the past few years, NHTSA has 

worked independently on the 

development of a test protocol and 

acceptance criteria for determining 

whether a secondary task is too 

distracting for drivers to perform while 

driving. This research is documented in 

a recently released NHTSA technical 

report.80 The test protocol combines eye 

glance metrics similar to those of 

Alliance Alternative A, driving 

performance variability metrics similar 

to those of Alliance Alternative B, and 

target detection metrics to attain a 

comprehensive protocol that NHTSA 

believes is useable for both visualmanual and auditory-vocal driver 

interfaces. 

In developing this protocol, NHTSA 

considered two existing test protocols 

and sets of acceptance criteria for 

determining whether a task is too 

distracting to be performed by drivers 

while driving that were based upon its 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11222 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

research. These were Option DFD–BM: 

Dynamic Following and Detection 

Protocol with Benchmark and Option 

DFD–FC: Dynamic Following and 

Detection Protocol with Fixed 

Acceptance Criteria. Option DFD–BM 

uses route navigation system destination 

entry (entry of the full address including 

house number, street name, and city 

name) as a reference task. Unlike Option 

DS–BM, where the acceptance criteria 

are that the appropriate metric values 

should not be worse than radio tuning, 

for Option DFD–BM the acceptance 

criteria are that the appropriate metric 

values should be better than those 

associated with the destination entry 

reference task. 

The use of a destination entry 

reference task gives NHTSA similar 

concerns as were noted for the radio 

tuning reference task. If a very detailed 

navigation system interface is not 

specified in the guidelines, the 

opportunity may be left for designers to 

create route navigation systems for 

which the destination entry task is more 

difficult. The result would be a nonfixed reference task that could be used 

to justify more complex secondary tasks 

as being suitable for performance while 

driving. To alleviate this concern, 

NHTSA also considered Option DFD– 

FC: Dynamic Following and Detection 

Protocol with Fixed Acceptance Criteria. 

Option DFD–FC is very similar to 

Option DFD–BM except that instead of 

using a reference task to determine 

acceptance, under Option DFD–BM 

fixed values for the metrics would be 

used. 

Table 3 summarizes the seven test 

protocols and sets of acceptance criteria 

for determining whether a task is 

unreasonably distracting and should be 

locked out while driving. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF DISTRACTION TEST PROTOCOLS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA CONSIDERED BY NHTSA 

Option letter Test name Performance measures Acceptance criteria Testing venue 

EGDS ........... Eye Glance Testing Using 

a Driving Simulator.

• Duration of individual eye 

glances away from forward 

road view.

• 85% of individual glance durations less than 2.0 seconds.

• Mean of individual glance durations less than 2.0 seconds.

• Sum of individual eye glance 

durations less than or equal to 

12.0.

Driving Simulator. 

• Sum of individual eye glance 

durations away from forward 

road view.

OCC ............. Occlusion Testing .............. • Sum of shutter open times ...... • Sum of shutter open times 

less than 9.0 seconds.

Occlusion. 

STEP ............ Step Counting .................... • Number of steps required for 

task.

• Less than 6 steps required for 

task.

Task Analysis. 

DS–BM ......... Driving Test Protocol with 

Benchmark.

• Standard deviation of headway 

• Lane exceedances ..................

• Performance measures not 

greater than benchmark values.

Driving Simulator. 

DS–FC ......... Driving Test Protocol with 

Fixed Acceptance Criteria.

• Same as Option DS–BM ......... • Performance measures not 

greater than specified values.

Driving Simulator. 

DFD–BM ...... Dynamic Following and Detection Protocol with 

Benchmark.

• Duration of individual eye 

glances away from forward 

road view. 

• Sum of individual eye glance 

durations away from forward 

road view. 

• Option EGDS eye glance acceptance criteria plus. 

• Performance measures less 

than benchmark values. 

Driving Simulator. 

• Standard deviation of lane position.

• Car following delay.

• Percent of visual targets detected.

• Visual detection response time.

DFD–FC ....... Dynamic Following and Detection Protocol with 

Fixed Acceptance Criteria.

• Same as Option DFD–BM ...... • Option EGDS eye glance acceptance criteria plus 

• Performance measures less 

than specified values.

Driving Simulator. 

L. NHTSA’s Preferred Tests for 

Determining What Tasks Should Be 

Accessible While Driving 

NHTSA has thoroughly evaluated all 

seven of the candidate test protocols 

and acceptance criteria for determining 

what tasks should be accessible while 

driving listed in Table 3. The evaluation 

criteria used included: 

• Test protocol discriminatory 

capability, 

• Difficulty of performing test 

protocol, and 

• Repeatability of test protocol. 

NHTSA is not, at this time, removing 

any of the test protocols and acceptance 

criteria that are listed in Table 3 from 

consideration for use as a task 

acceptability test protocol(s) in the 

NHTSA Guidelines. However, the 

Agency is indicating that it prefers two 

of the Table 3 test protocols and that 

one, or both, of these test protocols are 

more likely to be selected. Following 

due consideration of comments received 

in response to this notice, NHTSA will 

select the test protocols and acceptance 

criteria for determining what visualmanual tasks should be accessible while 

driving. 

NHTSA has decided that it prefers the 

following two test protocols and their 

associated acceptance criteria: 

• Option EGDS: Eye Glance Testing 

Using a Driving Simulator, and 

• Option OCC: Occlusion Testing. 

The Agency’s reasons for choosing these 

two options as its preferred test 

protocols and acceptance criteria are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11223 

81 Klauer, S.G., Dingus, T.A., Neale, V.L., 

Sudweeks, J.D., and Ramsey, D.J., ‘‘The Impact of 

Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An 

Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving 

Study Data,’’ DOT HS 810 594, April 2006. 

discussed in the remainder of this 

subsection. 

Two of the test protocols and 

acceptance criteria that NHTSA 

considered, Option DS–BM: Driving Test 

Protocol with Benchmark and Option 

DFD–BM: Dynamic Following and 

Detection Protocol with Benchmark, 

include benchmark tasks. For Option 

DS–BM, the benchmark task is manual 

radio tuning while the benchmark task 

for Option DFD–BM is entering an 

address into a route navigation system. 

The goal of using a benchmark task is 

to increase the discriminatory power of 

a test protocol by comparing the 

performance of test participants 

performing a task using a device against 

that for the benchmark task. Both 

theoretically, and in NHTSA’s 

experimental testing, the use of a 

benchmark task reduces the impact of 

individual test participant differences 

on the outcome of testing. 

However, NHTSA has decided that 

the drawbacks of using a benchmark 

task outweigh the advantages. The main 

drawbacks regarding the use of a 

benchmark task are: 

• The determination as to what tasks 

may be performed by the driver while 

driving depends not just on the task and 

the device under consideration but also 

on the design of the device with which 

the reference task is performed. The 

level of detail of the benchmark task 

specification will affect the repeatability 

of test results. For example, if a 

reference task of manual radio tuning 

was specified with minimal radio 

interface specifications, then performing 

a task with a device might be deemed 

unsuitable for performance while 

driving in a vehicle that had a very easy 

to tune radio but suitable for 

performance while driving in a second 

vehicle that had a more difficult to tune 

radio. Testing recently performed for 

NHTSA by VTTI has found large 

vehicle-to-vehicle differences in driver 

performance during manual radio 

tuning so NHTSA knows that this 

concern is real and not just 

hypothetical. 

• Not all vehicles have a suitable 

device for performing the benchmark 

task. While virtually all production 

vehicles have radios suitable for 

performing the manual radio tuning 

task, the Alliance Guidelines did 

consider it necessary to include 

specifications for simulating a built-in 

radio to bound the difficulty of the 

benchmark task. Many production 

vehicles do not have a built-in route 

navigation system. Again, specifications 

could be developed for simulating a 

built-in route navigation system. 

However, simulating the device used for 

the reference task increases testing 

complexity and cost while reducing the 

meaningfulness of a test. 

Based upon its evaluation, NHTSA 

believes that two eye glance-related test 

protocols and acceptance criteria, 

Option EGDS: Eye Glance Testing Using 

a Driving Simulator, and Option OCC: 

Occlusion Testing, are both acceptable 

methods for determining which tasks 

should have lock outs during driving. 

The eye glance-related test protocols 

have a number of advantages. These 

include: 

• A clear relationship between eye 

glance-related metrics and driving safety 

exists. A driver’s vigilant monitoring of 

the road and nearby vehicles is essential 

to safe driving. 

• A substantial research base exists 

that verifies the correctness of the above 

statement and provides quantitative 

support for it. Based on analyses of past 

naturalistic data, we know that looking 

away from the forward roadway for up 

to 2.0 seconds has no statistically 

significant effect on the risk of a crash 

or near-crash event occurring. However, 

eyes-off-road times of greater than 2.0 

seconds have been shown to increase 

risk at a statistically significant level. 

The risk of a crash or near-crash event 

increases rapidly as eyes-off-road time 

increases above 2.0 seconds.81

• An obvious relationship between 

visual-manual distraction and eye 

glance measures exists. Visual-manual 

distraction strongly implies that the 

driver is looking away from the forward 

road scene. 

• Eyes-off-road time is measureable. 

While not easy to measure, researchers 

have been working for more than 30 

years to develop better techniques for 

measuring driver eyes-off-road times. A 

large amount of effort has focused on 

such topics as the best ways to ensure 

coding reliability when reducing eye 

glance video and the development of 

automated eye trackers. 

• Commercially available occlusion 

goggles allow occlusion testing to be 

performed without having to develop 

new hardware. 

• ISO standards exist for both eye 

glance measurement (ISO 15007–1 and 

ISO 15007–2) and occlusion testing (ISO 

16673). This allows us to take advantage 

of years of test development effort by 

the research community. 

While both of these test protocols 

have some drawbacks, NHTSA generally 

considers these issues to be relatively 

minor. 

Option EGDS: Eye Glance Testing 

Using a Driving Simulator suffers from 

two problems: 

• The need for a driving simulator in 

which to perform testing. A driving 

simulator is an expensive piece of test 

equipment that typically requires 

special, highly trained staff to operate 

correctly. The driving simulator should 

be configured to model the dynamics of 

the vehicle being tested. Option EGDS is 

not alone in having this problem; 

Options DS–BM, DS–FC, DFD–BM, and 

DFD–FC also require a driving 

simulator. 

• Difficulty in accurately measuring 

eye glance behavior from data collected 

during testing. There are two main 

methods for determining eye glance 

characteristics from test data: through 

the use of an eye tracker and by 

manually extracting eye glance locations 

and durations from video recorded data. 

There are substantial operational 

problems associated with both of these 

methods. For example, using an eye 

tracker requires extensive calibration for 

each test participant, which 

substantially adds to the time and 

expense of testing. Manually reducing 

video recorded data to obtain eye glance 

characteristics is highly labor intensive, 

time consuming, and expensive. While 

both methods can be used to determine 

the angle at which a participant’s head 

is aimed with respect to center, 

identifying the particular point of gaze 

(i.e., where the eyes are pointed, or eye 

glance location) is challenging. Both 

methods of measuring eye glance 

behavior are even more difficult for test 

participants who wear eye glasses, such 

that participants who require them to 

drive are at times avoided, substantially 

reducing the test participant pool (in 

NHTSA’s experience, this is particularly 

a problem when trying to recruit older 

test participants). 

Option OCC: Occlusion Testing 

avoids both of the drawbacks that are 

present for Option EGDS: Eye Glance 

Testing Using a Driving Simulator. 

Testing does not have to be performed 

in a driving simulator so the driving 

simulator related issues are avoided. 

The occlusion apparatus constrains 

when driver eye glances to the task 

device occur, so the eye glance analysis 

difficulties present for Option EGDS are 

not present for Option OCC. 

NHTSA’s proposed occlusion testing 

uses a field factor of 75 percent to relate 

shutter open time during occlusion 

testing to eyes-off-road time measured 

during driving simulator testing. The 

Alliance Guidelines and ISO 

International Standard 16673:2007(E), 

‘‘Road Vehicles—Ergonomic Aspects of 

Transport Information and Control 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11224 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

82Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Parmer, E., 

Domeyer, J., Martin, J., and Mazzae, E.N., 

‘‘Developing a Test to Measure Distraction Potential 

of In-Vehicle Information System Tasks in 

Production Vehicles,’’ DOT HS 811 463, November 

2011. 

83Research has indicated that one type of lane 

exceedance, specifically those due to ‘‘curve 

cutting,’’ have no relationship to safety. 

84Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H.S., Parmer, E., 

Domeyer, J., Martin, J., and Mazzae, E.N., 

‘‘Developing a Test to Measure Distraction Potential 

of In-Vehicle Information System Tasks in 

Production Vehicles,’’ DOT HS 811 463, November 

2011. 

Systems—Occlusion Method to Assess 

Visual Demand due to the use of InVehicle Systems’’ also uses this 75 

percent field factor. The JAMA 

Guidelines, however, use a field factor 

of 93.75 percent. 

The theoretical rationale of a field 

factor is that every time a driver looks 

away from the forward roadway (for 

occlusion testing, each such eye glance 

is assumed to be 2.0-seconds long), the 

first 0.50 seconds is spent transitioning 

the driver’s eyes from the roadway to 

the object being looked at (i.e., a 

saccade). As a result, only 1.5-seconds 

of a 2.0-second eye glance are available 

for actually looking at and manipulating 

the device interface. Therefore, 

occlusion testing is performed in 1.5- 

second shutter open time periods each 

corresponding to one 2.0-second eye 

glance focused away from the forward 

roadway. 

NHTSA performed a small study to 

experimentally determine the most 

appropriate field factor.82 NHTSA’s 

testing produced a field factor of 78 

percent for occlusion testing that was 

quite close to the field factor of 75 

percent in the ISO Standard 16673. 

Since the NHTSA Guidelines occlusion 

test procedure is based on the ISO 

Standard 16673, the theoretical field 

factor of 75 percent is used instead of 

the experimentally determined field 

factor of 78 percent throughout the 

remainder of this document. Note that 

the use of the theoretical field factor is 

slightly conservative in the sense that it 

results in shorter viewing intervals; 

using the experimentally determined 

field factor would increase the viewing 

intervals from 1.50 seconds to 1.56 

seconds. 

However, Option OCC has one major 

drawback of its own. Option OCC does 

not really test for adherence to the 

criterion that single glance durations 

generally should not exceed 2.0 

seconds. The use of an occlusion 

apparatus forcibly restricts single glance 

durations to be no more than 1.5 

seconds long (which, with the 75 

percent field factor being applied to 

occlusion testing, equates to a 2.0 

second eye glance). If a test participant 

can complete a task using the occlusion 

protocol, it has been demonstrated that 

drivers can complete the task with sub2.0 second eye glance durations. 

However, just because drivers can 

accomplish a task with sub-2.0 second 

eye glances does not mean that they 

actually will limit themselves to sub-2.0 

second eye glance durations when not 

constrained by occlusion apparatus. 

Option OCC does not include any 

mechanism for ensuring that, during 

actual driving, drivers will limit 

themselves to sub-2.0 second eye glance 

durations while performing a given task. 

Option STEP: Step Counting has a 

major advantage over all of the other test 

protocols and acceptance criteria 

considered by NHTSA in that it does 

not require human testing to determine 

whether a task is suitable for performing 

while driving. The task analysis that is 

performed for this method should be 

quite objective since it is generally quite 

clear how many button presses or other 

manual operations have to be performed 

in order to perform a task. The 

objectivity of Option STEP would be 

helpful if, at some future time, NHTSA 

decided to convert its NHTSA 

Guidelines into a Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard. 

Since no human performance testing 

is actually performed, Option STEP also 

avoids both of the drawbacks that are 

present for Option EGDS: Eye Glance 

Testing Using a Driving Simulator. 

While not having human performance 

testing gives Option STEP some major 

advantages, it is also the source of this 

option’s major drawback. Option STEP 

is based on data using past and present 

vehicle designs about the eyes-off-road 

time required for drivers to perform 

common manual actions, such as button 

presses. However, there are no 

guarantees that the eyes-off-road time 

required to perform these actions will 

remain the same for future devices and 

in-vehicle tasks. NHTSA does not want 

to determine that tasks performed on 

future devices are safe to perform while 

driving without performing any human 

performance testing. 

Another issue with Option STEP is 

determining exactly what constitutes a 

step in all situations. While it is fairly 

clear what a step is for pressing buttons, 

it is not clear for driver operation of 

such interface items as knobs or 

joysticks. 

Based on recent NHTSA testing, the 

two test protocols and acceptance 

criteria that NHTSA considered which 

were based on just driving performance, 

Option DS–BM: Driving Test Protocol 

with Benchmark and Option DS–FC: 

Driving Test Protocol with Fixed 

Acceptance Criteria, both suffer from 

low statistical power when performed 

using an economically reasonable 

number of test participants. When 

testing of a task/device was performed 

using just 20 test participants, there 

were almost no statistically significant 

differences in driver performance, even 

between tasks that were found to be 

different by other testing protocols. In 

order to obtain the power necessary to 

provide the discriminatory capability 

needed to determine which tasks should 

require lock outs during driving, many 

more (on the order of 100) test 

participants would need to be tested. 

This would make this test protocol 

impractically time consuming and 

expensive to perform for the large 

number of tasks that will need to be 

screened. 

One of the reasons for the low 

discriminatory capability of the Options 

DS–BM and DS–FC test protocols and 

acceptance criteria was due to their use 

of lane exceedances as a measure of test 

participant performance. Lane 

exceedances have the advantage of 

being a measure of driving performance 

that appears to generally relate directly 

to safety.83 However, lane exceedances 

are low frequency events, particularly 

during straight line driving. Secondary 

tasks can be performed with no lane 

exceedances. The relative rarity of lane 

exceedances means that a large amount 

of testing has to be performed to obtain 

a statistically stable number of these 

events. 

One possible alternative to using lane 

exceedances as a measure of test 

participant performance is to use the 

mean standard deviation of lane 

position during task performance as a 

substitute measure of test participant 

performance. This approach was used 

by the Dynamic Following and 

Detection Test Protocol to increase the 

statistical power of that test procedure. 

The remaining two test protocols and 

acceptance criteria that NHTSA 

considered, Option DFD–BM: Dynamic 

Following and Detection Protocol with 

Benchmark and Option DFD–FC: 

Dynamic Following and Detection 

Protocol with Fixed Acceptance Criteria, 

were both based on the Dynamic 

Following and Detection (DFD) Test 

Protocol. This is a test protocol that has 

been developed by NHTSA84 over the 

last few years in an attempt to combine 

the Alliance Guidelines’ test protocols 

and acceptance criteria with the 

Peripheral Detection Task (PDT). This 

test protocol is a driving simulator 

based test protocol. Unlike the other test 

protocols evaluated, DFD results are 

based on a test participant performing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11225 

85 Ibid. 

86 In some cases, the first step is to switch to the 

radio function, or powering on the device. 

87P. 40, Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, 

‘‘Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification 

Procedures on Driver-Interactions with Advanced 

In-Vehicle Information and Communication 

Systems,’’ June 26, 2006 version, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, Washington, DC. 

88Wang, 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. 

89Singh, S., ‘‘Distracted Driving and Driver, 

Roadway, and Environmental Factors,’’ DOT HS 

811 380, September 2010. 

the same task repeatedly for a 2.5- 

minute interval. The DFD also uses a 

complex lead vehicle speed profile that 

the test participant is supposed to 

follow as well as they can with a fixed 

headway. It has acceptance criteria 

based upon eye glance characteristics, 

measures of test participant driving 

performance, and test participant 

performance in performing the PDT 

concurrently with other secondary 

tasks. 

Testing performed by NHTSA85 has 

demonstrated that the DFD test protocol 

generally works well for determining 

whether a task is overly distracting and 

should be locked out while driving. 

Unfortunately, adding additional 

measures of test participant 

performance and additional acceptance 

criteria increase test procedure and data 

analysis complexity. While this 

increased analysis complexity may well 

be necessary when evaluating a device’s 

auditory-vocal task interactions, it 

appears to be unnecessary when 

evaluating visual-manual device 

interfaces. A test protocol and 

acceptance criteria based only on eye 

glance characteristics appears to be 

adequate for visual-manual secondary 

tasks. 

In summary, all of the candidate test 

protocols and acceptance criteria that 

NHTSA evaluated have both advantages 

and drawbacks. Therefore, NHTSA is 

not, at this time, removing any of the 

test protocols and acceptance criteria 

from consideration for being the test 

protocol(s) finally selected. However, 

NHTSA has concluded that the 

following two test protocols and 

associated criteria might be best suited 

for the visual-manual NHTSA 

Guidelines: 

• Option EGDS: Eye Glance Testing 

Using a Driving Simulator, and 

• Option OCC: Occlusion Testing. 

Therefore, a detailed discussion of the 

basis for the proposed acceptance 

criteria will be given only for these two 

testing options. 

M. Eye Glance Acceptance Criteria 

The proposed acceptance criteria for 

Option EGDS: Eye Glance Testing Using 

a Driving Simulator are: 

• For at least 21 of the 24 test 

participants, no more than 15 percent 

(rounded up) of the total number of eye 

glances away from the forward road 

scene should have durations of greater 

than 2.0 seconds while performing the 

secondary task, and 

• For at least 21 of the 24 test 

participants, the mean duration of all 

eye glances away from the forward road 

scene should be less than 2.0 seconds 

while performing the secondary task, 

and 

• For at least 21 of the 24 test 

participants, the sum of the durations of 

each individual participant’s eye 

glances away from the forward road 

scene should be less than, or equal to, 

12.0 seconds while performing the 

secondary task one time. 

The rationale for the above acceptance 

criteria is discussed in the remainder of 

this subsection. First, NHTSA’s reasons 

for choosing manual radio tuning as its 

reference task are explained. It is from 

the manual radio tuning reference task 

that NHTSA’s acceptance criteria were 

developed. Next, this document will 

discuss the Alliance Guidelines’ task 

acceptance criteria. Then, recent 

NHTSA research on driver distraction 

and performance during manual radio 

tuning is presented. Finally, results 

from the recent NHTSA research on 

manual radio tuning are used to develop 

acceptance criteria. 

i. Selection of Manual Radio Tuning as 

the Reference Task 

The above proposed acceptance 

criteria were developed based on the 

idea of a ‘‘reference’’ task. A reference 

task strategy is used because no general 

consensus exists as to the threshold at 

which an absolute level of distraction 

due to a driver performing a task 

becomes unacceptably high. However, 

methods for measuring distraction while 

performing a secondary task have been 

developed. Since there is no agreed 

upon absolute level at which distraction 

becomes unacceptably high, a relative 

limit can be developed by comparing 

the distraction level associated with a 

driver performing an ‘‘acceptable’’ 

reference task with the distraction level 

associated with a driver performing new 

tasks. 

A reference task should be a 

commonly performed task that is 

societally acceptable for drivers to 

perform while driving. The idea is that 

any task that is more distracting than 

the selected reference task should be 

locked out while driving. Tasks that 

create less distraction than the selected 

reference task are suitable for the driver 

to perform while the vehicle is in 

motion. 

NHTSA has chosen traditional, 

manual radio tuning as its 

recommended reference task. Manual 

radio tuning consists of first 86 toggling 

betweens frequency bands (AM to FM or 

vice versa) and then using the tuning 

controls (e.g., rotary knob or 

continuously-held push button) to select 

a station at a specified frequency. The 

prescribed manual radio tuning task 

does not use a preset button to tune to 

a desired radio station, which would be 

considered ‘‘automatic’’ radio tuning. 

The Alliance Guidelines also use 

manual radio tuning as their reference 

task. The Alliance’s rationale 87 for radio 

tuning as the reference task is that 

traditional, manual radio tuning: 

• Is a distraction source that exists in 

the crash record 88 89 and so has 

established safety-relevance; 

• Is a typical in-vehicle task that 

average drivers perform; 

• Involves use of an in-vehicle device 

that has been present in motor vehicles 

for more than 80 years; 

• Is an in-vehicle device task that is 

typical in terms of technological 

complexity, as well as in terms of 

impacts on driver performance; and 

• Represents a plausible benchmark 

for driver distraction potential beyond 

which new devices, functions, and 

features should not go. 

Vehicle radios/stereos have long been 

the most common original equipment 

system with functionality not directly 

related to driving. Driving a car with the 

radio on is an extremely common and 

widely accepted scenario for Americans. 

Given this fact, it seems reasonable to 

allow other tasks to be performed that 

require a similar degree of driver 

interaction and to discourage tasks that 

are more distracting than that level. 

The specific reference task of manual 

radio tuning as defined by the Alliance 

involves a defined traditional radio 

design and two input steps: a single 

button press followed by a longer knob 

turn or button hold. Many of the most 

basic and common in-vehicle control 

inputs a driver may make require only 

a single, short duration input (e.g., turn 

on headlights, activate turn signal, 

adjust temperature). Considering this, 

manual radio tuning could be 

considered a worst case traditional task. 

In recent years, multi-function invehicle information systems such as 

BMW’s iDrive, Ford’s SYNC, and 

several others have come available. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11226 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

90Wang, 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. 

91P. 5, Singh, S., ‘‘Distracted Driving and Driver, 

Roadway, and Environmental Factors,’’ DOT HS 

811 380, September 2010. 

92Treat, J.R., Tumbas, N.S., McDonald, S.T., 

Shinar, D., Hume, R.D., Mayer, R.E., Stansifer, T.L., 

and Castellan, N.J., ‘‘Tri-Level Study of the Causes 

of Traffic Accidents: Final Report. Executive 

Summary,’’ DOT HS 805 099, May 1979. 

93Singh, S., ‘‘Distracted Driving and Driver, 

Roadway, and Environmental Factors,’’ DOT HS 

811 380, September 2010. 

94Wang, 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. 

95 Institute of Transportation Engineers, ‘‘Speed 

Zoning Information,’’ March 2004, retrieved in 

August 2011. 

96 Dingus, T.A., Attentional Demand Evaluation 

for an Automobile Moving-Map Navigation System, 

unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University, 

Blacksburg, VA, 1987. 

97Rockwell, T.H., ‘‘Spare Visual Capacity in 

Driving Revisited: New Empirical Results for an Old 

Idea,’’ in A. G. Gale et al (editors), Vision in 

Vehicles II (pp. 317–324, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 

1988. 

98When performing this determination, the 

Alliance is treating total glance time to the task as 

being the same as total eyes-off-road time. 

These multi-function systems provide 

the driver with more than just music 

and can involve more complex inputs 

and/or more steps for the driver to 

accomplish tasks. Comparing newer, 

more complex tasks to the historical 

standard of worst-case non-driving tasks 

allows a perspective on relative safety to 

be ascertained. 

Past research efforts have identified 

crashes that are believed to be caused by 

driver distraction due to vehicle radio 

use. A 1996 study by Wang, Knipling, 

and Goodman 90 analyzed data collected 

during 1995 by NASS–CDS. This 

analysis found that distraction due to 

driver radio, cassette player, or CD 

player usage was present in 2.1 percent 

of all crashes. There were also 2.6 

percent of crashes for which the source 

of distraction was unknown. 

Distributing crashes with an unknown 

source of distraction proportionately 

among the other identified sources of 

distraction, the percentage of crashes 

with distraction due to driver radio, 

cassette player, or CD player usage 

increases to 2.6 percent. 

A more recent study by Singh 91

analyzed data from NHTSA’s National 

Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey 

(NMVCCS) 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 driver 

radio or CD player usage was present in 

1.2 percent of all crashes. 

NMVCCS is NHTSA’s most recent, 

nationally representative, detailed 

survey of the causes of light motor 

vehicle crashes (essentially an updated 

version of the Indiana Tri-Level Study 

of the Causes of Traffic Accidents 92 that 

was conducted in the 1970s). For 

NMVCCS driver (including distractionand 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. 

Unfortunately, there is no way to 

determine with the data currently 

available to NHTSA (i.e., Singh, 93

Wang, Knipling, and Goodman 94) the 

fraction of the observed crashes due 

solely to radio usage (or due to radio 

tuning specifically). 

Making the further assumption that 

fatality, injury, and property damage 

only crashes all have the same 

percentage of distraction due to driver 

radio, cassette player, or CD player 

usage gives the estimates shown in 

Table 4. 

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FATALITIES, INJURIES, AND PROPERTY

DAMAGE ONLY CRASHES IN 2009 

DUE TO RADIO, CASSETTE, OR CD 

PLAYER USE

Singh 

estimate 

Wang, 

Knipling, 

and 

Goodman 

estimate 

Percentage ........... 1.2% 2.6% 

Fatalities ............... 406 869 

Injuries .................. 27,000 57,000 

Property Damage 

Only ................... 66,000 142,000 

As stated above, NHTSA accepts the 

use of manual radio tuning as a 

reference task for indicating a driver 

distraction magnitude beyond which 

new devices, functions, features, and 

tasks should not exceed. NHTSA agrees 

with the Alliance rationale for using 

manual radio tuning as the reference 

task and considers it suitable for use as 

a standard to which new in-vehicle 

tasks may be compared. 

ii. The Alliance Guidelines Acceptance 

Criteria 

The Alliance Guidelines include three 

verification options for their Alternative 

A: Eye Tracker Measurement, Video 

Recording of Test Participant’s Eyes/ 

Face, and Testing using Occlusion. Two 

of these verification options, Eye 

Tracker Measurement and Video 

Recording of Test Participant’s Eyes/ 

Face, require the determination of test 

participant eye glances. Both of these 

verification options are covered by 

NHTSA Option EGDS: Eye Glance 

Testing Using a Driving Simulator. The 

third Alliance Guidelines verification 

option, Testing using Occlusion, is 

covered by NHTSA Option OCC: 

Occlusion Testing. The development of 

acceptance criteria for Option OCC is 

discussed in a subsequent subsection. 

As discussed above, the Alliance 

Guidelines use manual radio tuning as 

their reference task. The Alliance 

Guidelines acceptance criteria were 

developed based on this reference task. 

The Alliance Guidelines acceptance 

criteria were based upon the 85th 

percentile of driver eye glance 

performance during manual radio 

tuning. As the Alliance points out, the 

85th percentile response characteristics 

or capability are a common design 

standard in traffic engineering. For 

example, according to the Federal 

Highway Administration, all states and 

most localities use the 85th percentile 

speed of free flowing traffic as a basic 

factor in establishing speed limits.95

The eye glance acceptance criteria 

times that are in the Alliance Guidelines 

are based on a 1987 study by Dingus 96

and a 1988 study by Rockwell.97

However, neither of these studies 

actually measured the total eyes-off-road 

time associated with manual radio 

tuning. The Rockwell study determined 

that approximately 85 percent of driver 

eye glances away from the forward road 

scene had durations of 1.90 seconds or 

less. This value of 1.90 seconds was 

rounded up by the Alliance to get their 

2.0-second criterion. The Dingus study 

determined that the 85th percentile for 

the number of driver eye glances away 

from the forward road scene was 9.4 

glances. The 9.4 glances value was 

rounded up by the Alliance to get 10 

glances. The Alliance then multiplied 

the 10 glances by 2.0 seconds per glance 

to determine their acceptance criteria of 

20.0 seconds of total glance time.98

Based on these studies, the Alliance 

Guideline’s Alternative A have two 

acceptance criteria: 

A1. Single glance durations generally 

should not exceed 2 seconds; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11227 

99P. 39, Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, 

‘‘Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification 

Procedures on Driver-Interactions with Advanced 

In-Vehicle Information and Communication 

Systems,’’ June 26, 2006 version, Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, Washington, DC. 

100 Ibid, P. 53. 

101This study had multiple objectives; a better 

understanding of manual radio tuning was just one 

of the objectives. 

102Ranney, T. A., Baldwin, G. H. S., Parmer, E., 

Martin, J., and Mazzae, E. N., ‘‘Distraction Effects 

of Number and Text Entry Using the Alliance of 

Automotive Manufacturers’ Principle 2.1B 

Verification Procedure,’’ NHTSA Technical Report 

number TBD, November 2011. 

A2. Task completion should require no 

more than 20 seconds of total glance time to 

display(s) and controls.99

For both of the eye glance verification 

options, the Alliance Guidelines 

operationalize the A1 and A2 

acceptance criteria as follows: 

A task will be considered to meet criterion 

A1 if the mean of the average glance 

durations to perform a task is ≤ 2.0 sec for 

85% of the test sample. A task will be 

considered to meet criterion A2 if the mean 

total glance time to perform a task is ≤ 20 sec 

for 85% of the sample of test participants.100

NHTSA has a concern with these 

Alliance-developed acceptance criteria 

because neither of the studies used as a 

basis for the criteria actually measured 

the total eyes-off-road time associated 

with manual radio tuning. Rather, the 

Alliance estimated it from the data 

available in the Dingus and Rockwell 

studies. NHTSA’s concern is with the 

way in which the estimate was 

developed. If 85 percent of driver eye 

glances away from the road last for less 

than 2.0 seconds, the probability of 10 

glances away from the road each having 

an average length of 2.0 seconds or 

greater is very small. As a result, due to 

rounding up of both the guidelinerecommended length of driver eye 

glances and the number of driver eye 

glances during manual radio tuning, the 

Alliance total glance time criterion of 

20.0 seconds is not the 85th percentile 

value that the Alliance advocates, but 

instead a value that approximates the 

100th percentile value for manual radio 

tuning. 

iii. Recent NHTSA Research on Manual 

Radio Tuning 

To obtain data about driver 

performance during manual radio 

tuning, NHTSA has recently sponsored 

two experimental studies, one with 

testing performed by NHTSA 101 and 

one with testing performed by VTTI. 

The NHTSA study 102 tested 90 test 

participants performing 541 instances of 

manual radio tuning in a 2010 Toyota 

Prius (trim level V) connected to a 

personal computer-based driving 

simulator. Driving the simulator 

required the test participant to follow a 

lead vehicle moving at a varying rate of 

speed. Table 5 presents summary data 

from the first (of, typically, 6) manual 

radio tuning trial for all 90 test 

participants. The last two columns 

represent the respective percentile 

values from distributions of each 

subject’s proportion of glances longer 

than 1.5 and 2.0 seconds, respectively. 

The glance data were computed from 

eye tracker data. (Comparable data 

reduced manually from video footage 

was also collected for these trials; this 

found similar glance durations.) 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF EYE GLANCE MEASURES DURING THE FIRST MANUAL RADIO TUNING PERFORMED BY TEST

PARTICIPANTS IN A 2010 TOYOTA PRIUS ON THE NHTSA DRIVING SIMULATOR (N = 90) 

Measure or percentile 

Total eyes-offroad time 

(seconds) 

Number of 

glances from 

road 

Mean glance 

duration 

(seconds) 

Percent of 

glances > 1.5 

seconds 

Percent of 

glances > 2.0 

seconds 

Mean .................................................................................... 7.11 8.04 0.89 20 3 

Median ................................................................................. 7.25 8 0.85 0 0 

85th ...................................................................................... 10.50 12 1.14 25 0 

95th ...................................................................................... 12.70 15 1.39 40 29 

100th .................................................................................... 16.86 16 2.11 80 50 

Items of relevance from Table 5 for 

NHTSA’s determination of its 

acceptance criteria include: 

• The 85th percentile total eyes-offroad time (TEORT) based on the first 

radio tuning trial by each test 

participant was 10.50 seconds. 

• None of the first radio tuning trials 

by test participants had a TEORT that 

exceeded 20.00 seconds. The longest 

initial radio tuning trial took 16.86 

seconds. 

• The 85th percentile mean glance 

duration (MGD) was 1.14 seconds. For 

only 1 out of 90 test participants was the 

mean glance duration greater than 2.00 

seconds during their first trial. 

• The 85th percentile proportion of 

glances longer than 2.00 seconds was 

zero percent. This means that 85 percent 

of test participants performed their first 

radio tuning trial with no glances away 

from the forward roadway of duration 

longer than 2.0 seconds. 

The NHTSA data collection protocol 

had test participants perform the 

manual radio tuning task multiple 

times. Table 6 presents the same data as 

Table 5 except that Table 6 is based on 

data from all of each test participants’ 

radio tuning trials. The first trial data 

were analyzed separately, as presented 

above, since repeatedly performing the 

same task was expected to speed up test 

participant performance of the task. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF EYE GLANCE MEASURES DURING ALL MANUAL RADIO TUNING PERFORMED BY TEST

PARTICIPANTS IN A 2010 TOYOTA PRIUS ON THE NHTSA DRIVING SIMULATOR (N = 541) 

Measure or percentile 

Total eyes-offroad time 

(seconds) 

Number of 

glances from 

road 

Mean glance 

duration 

(seconds) 

Percent of 

glances > 1.5 

seconds 

Percent of 

glances > 2.0 

seconds 

Mean .................................................................................... 6.49 7.54 0.87 10 3 

Median ................................................................................. 6.38 7 0.84 0 0 

85th ...................................................................................... 9.61 11 1.15 25 0 

95th ...................................................................................... 11.97 14 1.39 40 22 

100th .................................................................................... 20.50 21 2.11 80 50 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11228 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

103The variable speed profile of the lead vehicle 

for this second lap was similar to the one used by 

NHTSA during testing on their driving simulator. 

There were two differences. First, slowing down the 

lead vehicle on the NHTSA driving simulator was 

accomplished by having the driver remove his/her 

foot from the throttle pedal and allowing the 

vehicle to coast. However, due to the vertical profile 

of the VTTI Smart Road, when going downhill, the 

lead vehicle driver had to brake to produce the 

desired speed variation. The resulting brake lights 

are likely to have impacted the test participants’ 

following behavior/performance. Second, the speed 

reduction profile was more step-wise than the one 

used in the simulator, since the lead vehicle speed 

was controlled by a trained driver, not by 

automated means. 

Differences between the first trial and 

all trial data are minor. What differences 

do exist suggest that radio tuning 

performance improves slightly with 

repeated performance. However, it is 

important to note that, while the large 

number of trials included in Table 6 

provides more precision in the 

estimation of the various metrics, the 

construction of this distribution is not 

formally suitable for use with inferential 

statistics, which require independence 

among all of the individual data items. 

In this collection, the use of multiple 

data points from each subject is not 

consistent with the independence 

requirement. Items of relevance from 

Table 6 for NHTSA’s determination of 

its acceptance criteria include: 

• The 85th percentile TEORT value 

for repeatedly performing radio tuning 

was 9.61 seconds. (Reduced from the 

10.50 seconds found for the first trial 

data.) 

• Only 1 out of 541 total radio tuning 

trials had a TEORT value greater than 

20.00 seconds. The second longest 

TEORT value was 17.28 seconds. 

• The 85th percentile mean glance 

duration was 1.15 seconds. For only 1 

out of 541 trials was the mean glance 

duration greater than 2.00 seconds. The 

second longest mean glance duration 

was 1.85 seconds. 

• The 85th percentile proportion of 

glances longer than 2.00 seconds was 

zero percent. Although not shown in 

Table 6, the 90th percentile value for 

this metric was 14 percent. This means 

that 90 percent of 541 radio tuning trials 

were accomplished with no more than 

14 percent of the glances away from the 

forward roadway being longer than 2.00 

seconds. 

The VTTI radio tuning study had two 

testing phases. During Phase I, test 

participants drove each of four vehicles 

on the VTTI Smart Road while 

following a lead vehicle traveling at a 

constant speed of 45 mph. One vehicle 

was tested using both of its two 

available methods for tuning the radio, 

resulting in a total of five test 

conditions. The five vehicles/ 

configuration conditions tested were: 

1. 2005 Mercedes R350 

2. 2006 Cadillac STS 

3. 2006 Infiniti M35 

4. 2010 Chevrolet Impala with rotary 

knob tuning 

5. 2010 Chevrolet Impala with push 

button tuning 

During Phase II, test participants 

drove each of two vehicles on the VTTI 

Smart Road while following a lead 

vehicle traveling during one lap at a 

constant speed of 45 mph and during 

another lap at a variable speed.103 One 

vehicle was again tested using both of 

its two available methods for manually 

tuning the radio resulting in a total of 

three test conditions. The three 

vehicles/configuration conditions tested 

were: 

1. 2010 Chevrolet Impala with rotary 

knob tuning 

2. 2010 Chevrolet Impala with knob/ 

button tuning 

3. 2010 Toyota Prius (exact same 

vehicle as tested by NHTSA) 

A total of 43 participants between the 

ages of 45 and 65 took part in this study. 

This participant sample was comprised 

of two separate participant groups, as 

data collection occurred in phases listed 

above. Invalid data points were 

removed, yielding at least 20 

participants with complete data for each 

phase as well as some participants with 

missing data. 

Data were analyzed for the longest 

duration manual radio tuning trial for 

each test participant for each vehicle/ 

configuration. Data for a total of 228 

manual radio tuning trials were 

obtained and analyzed. 

Table 7 summarizes the eye glance 

measures that were calculated by VTTI 

for the manual radio tuning trial of 

longest duration performed by each test 

participant in each of the vehicles/ 

tuning methods/lead vehicle speed 

profile conditions. The values shown for 

Total Glance Time to Task, Total EyesOff-Road Time, and Average Duration of 

Individual Glances to Device are all 

85th percentile values. The Duration of 

Longest Glance to Device values are the 

longest glances to the device that were 

made for that vehicle/tuning method/ 

lead vehicle speed profile for any of the 

radio tuning trials that were analyzed. 

TABLE 7—85TH PERCENTILES OF EYE GLANCE MEASURES DURING MANUAL RADIO TUNING TRIALS PERFORMED BY IN

VARIOUS VEHICLES TEST PARTICIPANTS ON THE VTTI SMART ROAD (N = 228) 

[Duration of Longest Glance to Device and Total Number of Data Points are not 85th percentiles] 

Vehicle, tuning method, and lead vehicle speed profile 

Total glance 

time to task 

(sec.) 

Total eyes-offroad time 

(sec.) 

Mean glance 

duration 

(sec.) 

Duration of 

longest glance 

to device 

(sec.) 

Total number 

of data points 

(—) 

Cadillac STS—Knob Tuning—Constant Speed .................. 15.9 16.3 1.7 2.9 21 

Chevrolet Impala—Button Tuning—Constant Speed .......... 13.2 13.9 1.3 2.4 41 

Chevrolet Impala—Knob Tuning—Constant Speed ............ 7.8 8.1 1.4 2.2 41 

Chevrolet Impala—Button Tuning—Varied Speed .............. 11.5 12.3 1.2 2.3 20 

Chevrolet Impala—Knob Tuning—Varied Speed ................ 8.4 8.5 1.4 2.4 20 

Infiniti M35—Button Tuning—Constant Speed .................... 17.6 17.6 1.7 4.5 21 

Mercedes R350—Button Tuning—Constant Speed ............ 15.4 16.6 1.4 2.6 22 

Toyota Prius—Knob Tuning—Constant Speed ................... 10.3 11.1 1.4 2.4 21 

Toyota Prius—Knob Tuning—Varied Speed ....................... 11.3 11.3 1.6 2.7 21 

All VTTI Data ....................................................................... 11.6 11.8 1.5 2.5 228 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11229 

104However, the Alliance Guidelines do not 

consistently distinguish between test participant 

glances to the device being tested and test 

participant eye glances away from the forward 

roadway and, in places, appear to treat the two as 

interchangeable. For example, in the discussion on 

p. 42 of the Alliance Guidelines on the basis for the 

Alliances A2 acceptance criterion of 20 seconds, the 

phrase ‘‘mean number of glances away from the 

road scene’’ is used. However, this is equated to test 

participant glances to the device being tested to 

develop the 20 seconds acceptance criterion. 

105Ranney, 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’s eye glance measurement 

technology has been upgraded since this report was 

written but the specific eye position limitation 

noted in that report continues to be a problem. The 

report ‘‘Developing a Test to Measure Distraction 

Potential of In-Vehicle Information System Tasks in 

Production Vehicles’’ by Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, 

G.H.S., Parmer, E., Domeyer, J., Martin, J., and 

Mazzae, E. N., DOT HS 811 463, November 2011, 

discusses NHTSA’s most recent work to upgrade its 

eye glance measurement technology. 

106Horrey, W.J., and Wickens, C.D., ‘‘In-Vehicle 

Glance Duration: Distributions, Tails, and Model of 

Crash Risk,’’ Transportation Research Record, 

Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 

2018, Transportation Research Board of the 

National Academies, pp. 22–28, Washington, DC, 

2007. 

107For a task that only requires one glance away 

from the forward roadway, the mean glance 

duration criterion cannot be met unless that glance 

is less than 2.0 seconds long. Therefore, the 

proposed NHTSA eye glance distribution tail 

limiting criterion does not need to have a special 

case for one glance tasks. 

Items of relevance from Table 7 for 

NHTSA’s determination of its 

acceptance criteria include: 

• The 85th percentile Total Glance 

Time to Task (TGT) for performing 

manual radio tuning varied from 7.8 to 

17.6 seconds depending upon the 

vehicle, tuning method, and lead 

vehicle speed profile. The 85th 

percentile TGT for all of the VTTI radio 

tuning data was 11.6 seconds. 

• The 85th percentile Total Eyes-OffRoad Time (TEORT) for performing 

manual radio tuning varied from 8.1 to 

17.6 seconds depending upon the 

vehicle, tuning method, and lead 

vehicle speed profile. The 85th 

percentile TEORT for all of the VTTI 

radio tuning data was 11.8 seconds. 

• The 85th percentile TEORT 

exceeded the 85th percentile TGT times 

by 0.0 to 1.2 seconds with an average 

increase of 0.2 seconds. 

• The 85th percentile mean glance 

durations ranged from 1.2 to 1.7 seconds 

depending upon the vehicle, tuning 

method, and lead vehicle speed profile. 

iv. Development of NHTSA’s Eye 

Glance Acceptance Criteria 

NHTSA proposes to base the 

acceptance criteria in these Guidelines 

on test participants’ Eyes-Off-Road Time 

(EORT) during task performance. This 

differs from existing Alliance and JAMA 

Guidelines which assess task-related eye 

glance behavior based upon just those 

eye glances to the device upon which 

the task is being performed.104

NHTSA proposes to use EORT 

because we would like to use eye 

tracker data to determine whether a task 

meets the eye glance criteria. However, 

based upon the experiences of NHTSA, 

eye tracker data do not have quite 

enough accuracy to reliably characterize 

whether eye glances are focused toward 

the device upon which the task is being 

performed or toward some other invehicle location.105 Eye tracker data do 

have sufficient accuracy to accurately 

characterize test participant eye glances 

focused away from the forward 

roadway. 

Total EORT, or the cumulative 

duration of eye glances away from the 

roadway during task performance, will 

always equal or exceed the Total Glance 

Time to Task (TGT). For the VTTI 

testing, the 85th percentile of this 

difference ranged from 0.0 to 1.2 

seconds with an average increase of 0.2 

seconds. Therefore, basing the test 

acceptance criteria on TEORT instead of 

TGT gives a slight increase in test 

stringency. However, this is partially 

compensated for by NHTSA’s use of a 

reference task to determine overall test 

stringency. 

NHTSA finds reasonable the 

Alliance’s technique of using the 85th 

percentile of driver eye glance measures 

while performing manual radio tuning 

as a way to set acceptance criteria for 

testing to determine if a task is 

unreasonably distracting. As the 

Alliance points out, the 85th percentile 

response characteristics or capability are 

a common design standard in traffic 

engineering. Other existing guidelines 

do not appear to use this reference task 

technique for determining acceptance 

criteria. 

Occlusion testing (discussed in 

greater detail in a subsequent 

subsection) involves unoccluded vision 

durations of 1.5 seconds. Using the 

previously discussed 75 percent field 

factor for occlusion testing versus 

driving simulator eyes-off-road time, 

each 1.5-second unoccluded period 

corresponds to 2.0 seconds of driving 

simulator eyes-off-road time. Therefore, 

specified acceptance criteria involving 

eyes-off-road time should be a multiple 

of 2.0 seconds. 

The NHTSA and VTTI manual radio 

tuning testing summarized in Tables 5 

through 7 found 85th percentile Mean 

Glance Durations (MGD) that ranged 

from 1.1 to 1.7 seconds depending upon 

the vehicle, tuning method, test venue, 

and lead vehicle speed profile. All of 

these values round to 2.0 seconds 

(equivalent to a shutter open time of 1.5 

seconds during occlusion testing). 

Therefore one proposed NHTSA 

acceptance criterion is that, for 85 

percent of test participants, the mean 

duration of all individual eye glances 

away from the forward road scene 

should be less than 2.0 seconds while 

performing the secondary task. Since 

NHTSA is proposing to test a sample of 

24 subjects, for at least 21 of the 24 test 

participants (85 percent rounded up to 

the next whole number of test 

participants), the mean of all eye 

glances away from the forward road 

scene should be less than 2.0 seconds 

while performing the secondary task. 

The proposed NHTSA mean eye glance 

duration criterion then is: 

• For at least 21 of the 24 test 

participants, the mean duration of all 

individual eye glances away from the 

forward road scene should be less than 

2.0 seconds while performing the 

secondary task. 

The above acceptance criterion only 

constrains the mean of the eye glance 

distribution. This is necessary but, 

NHTSA believes, not sufficient. As 

pointed out by Horrey and Wickens: 

In general, the unsafe conditions that are 

likely to produce a motor vehicle crash reside 

not at the mean of a given distribution (in 

other words, under typical conditions), but 

rather in the tails of the distribution.106

To ensure safety, it is also necessary 

to have another acceptance criterion 

that minimizes the above 2.0-seconds 

tail of the eye glance distribution. 

The acceptance criterion that NHTSA 

is proposing is designed to directly limit 

the tail of the eye glance distribution. 

The proposed eye glance distribution 

tail-limiting criterion, for 85 percent of 

test participants, limits the percentage 

of their long (more than 2.0 seconds) eye 

glances away from the forward road 

scene while performing the secondary 

task to no more than 15 percent of their 

total number of eye glances away from 

the road. 

Typically, the number of eye glances 

away the forward road scene will be 

fairly low for any task, function, or 

feature that passes all of the eye glance 

criteria. For example, if the average eye 

glance duration is 1.5 seconds, a task 

can have a maximum of eight eye 

glances away the forward road scene 

and meet the TEORT acceptance 

criterion (discussed below). Therefore, 

the method used for rounding when 

calculating the 15 percent of eye glances 

value is important. 

NHTSA has tentatively decided that, 

for any task that requires at least two 107

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11230 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

108For the purposes of these NHTSA Guidelines, 

‘‘while driving’’ is defined as any time the vehicle’s 

engine is turned on and its transmission is not in 

‘‘Park’’ (for automatic transmission vehicles; for 

manual transmission vehicles change this to the 

transmission is not in ‘‘Neutral’’ with the parking 

brake engaged). 

109Ranney, T. A., Baldwin, G. H. S., Parmer, E., 

Martin, J., and Mazzae, E. N., ‘‘Distraction Effects 

of Number and Text Entry Using the Alliance of 

Automotive Manufacturers’ Principle 2.1B 

Verification Procedure,’’ NHTSA Technical Report 

number TBD, November 2011. 

110http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/

statistics/2009/dl20.cfm. 

eye glances away from the forward road 

scene, it should be acceptable for at 

least one of these eye glances to exceed 

2.0 seconds in duration (of course, the 

other two acceptance criteria would also 

have to be met). This can be 

accomplished by always rounding up 

when calculating the guidelinerecommended number of eye glances 

exceeding 2.0 seconds in duration. The 

proposed NHTSA eye glance 

distribution tail limiting criterion then 

is: 

• For at least 21 of the 24 test 

participants, no more than 15 percent 

(rounded up) of the total number of eye 

glances away from the forward road 

scene should have durations of greater 

than 2.0 seconds while performing the 

secondary task. 

The NHTSA and VTTI manual radio 

tuning testing summarized in Tables 5 

through 7 found 85th percentile Total 

Eyes-Off-Road Times (TEORT) values 

that ranged from 8.1 to 17.6 seconds 

depending upon the vehicle, tuning 

method, test venue, trial, and lead 

vehicle speed profile. 

NHTSA is proposing to perform 

driver eye glance measurement in 

conjunction with a driving simulator 

protocol. For test participants driving a 

2010 Toyota Prius, NHTSA measured a 

85th percentile TEORT value of 10.5 

seconds for the first manual radio 

tuning trial performed and 9.6 seconds 

using data from all trials. It is not clear 

which of these values best typifies 

normal driving since drivers are 

generally familiar with their own 

vehicle’s radio, and have tuned it many 

times but generally not consecutively. 

The VTTI data collected under 

conditions that most closely match the 

NHTSA experimental conditions for 

testing are those collected on VTTI’s 

Smart Road using a 2010 Toyota Prius 

(VTTI tested the exact same vehicle) 

following a lead vehicle with varying 

speed. The VTTI measured 85th 

percentile TEORT for this condition is 

11.3 seconds (versus NHTSA’s 10.5 

seconds). From this data, it appears that 

driving simulator measured TEORT 

values may be slightly shorter than ones 

measured while driving on the Smart 

Road. However, the two studies’ results 

are similar enough (considering the 

variability present in testing of this sort) 

that it is reasonable to analyze both sets 

of results together and determine an 

overall TEORT. 

The 85th percentile from the 

consolidated NHTSA and VTTI manual 

radio tuning data is 11.3 seconds. For 

compatibility with occlusion testing, the 

maximum TEORT needs to be a 

multiple of 2.0 seconds. The nearest 

multiple of 2.0 seconds to 11.3 seconds 

is 12.0 seconds. Therefore NHTSA is 

proposing that the acceptance limit for 

TEORT for Option EGDS: Eye Glance 

Testing Using a Driving Simulator be 

12.0 seconds. In other words, tasks with 

an 85th percentile TEORT greater than 

12.0 seconds should not be accessible 

by the driver while driving.108

As has been mentioned, the Alliance 

Guidelines include a TEORT acceptance 

limit of 20.0 seconds for Principle 2.1, 

Alternative A. The JAMA Guidelines 

include a TEORT acceptance limit of 8.0 

seconds. NHTSA’s value of 12.0 seconds 

is between these two values. NHTSA 

prefers the 12.0 second limit to either of 

the other two guidelines’ values because 

the NHTSA value is based on more 

recent, more thorough, research. 

Since NHTSA is proposing to test a 

sample of 24 test participants, for at 

least 21 of the 24 test participants (85 

percent rounded up to the next whole 

number of test participants), the TEORT 

should be less than 12.0 seconds while 

performing the secondary task. The 

proposed NHTSA total eye glance 

duration criterion then is: 

• For at least 21 of the 24 test 

participants, the sum of the durations of 

each individual participant’s eye 

glances away from the forward road 

scene should be less than, or equal to, 

12.0 seconds while performing the 

secondary task one time. 

N. Human Subject Selection for 

Guideline Testing 

The NHTSA Guidelines suggest that 

the following test participant sample 

composition criteria be used for testing 

performed to determine whether a 

device should be locked out under the 

NHTSA Guidelines: 

1. To ensure that in-vehicle device 

secondary tasks can be performed by 

virtually the entire range of drivers 

without being unreasonably distracting, 

the recommended age range for test 

participants is 18 years and older. 

NHTSA research has shown that 

restricting test participant age range can 

improve test repeatability.109 The lower 

limit, 18 years of age, is due to concerns 

about testing with minors. There is no 

upper limit, however, organizations may 

set an upper age limit (such as 65 years 

old) for their testing if they can easily 

find the needed test participants and 

they have health concerns about testing 

with elderly test participants. 

2. Continuing with NHTSA’s goal of 

ensuring that in-vehicle device tasks can 

be performed by the entire age range of 

drivers without being unreasonably 

distracting, the NHTSA Guidelines 

recommend that out of each group of 24 

test participants used for testing, there 

should be 

• Six test participants 18 through 24 

years old, inclusive, and 

• Six test participants 25 through 39 

years old, inclusive, and 

• Six test participants 40 through 54 

years old, inclusive, and 

• Six test participants 55 or more 

years old. 

This should ensure adequate 

representation by a broad age range of 

test participants in each sample of 

subjects. 

The above age ranges are partially 

based on the age distribution of drivers 

in the United States. NHTSA is focusing 

on the age distribution of drivers rather 

than the age distribution of drivers 

involved in fatal crashes because: 

• The age distribution of drivers 

involved in fatal crashes due to 

electronic device distraction is not 

necessarily the same as the age 

distribution of drivers involved in all 

fatal crashes. NHTSA currently does not 

know the age distribution of drivers 

involved in fatal crashes due to 

electronic device distraction. 

• The age distribution of drivers 

involved in fatal crashes due to 

electronic device distraction may 

change in the future as new electronic 

devices are introduced into service. 

Table 8 shows the percentage of 

United States drivers 18 years of age and 

older in each of the four test participant 

age ranges. 

TABLE 8—PERCENT OF UNITED

STATES DRIVERS 18 YEARS OF AGE

AND OLDER IN EACH AGE RANGE 110

Age range 

Percent of United 

States drivers in age 

range 

18–24 ........................ 11.4% 

25–39 ........................ 26.8% 

40–54 ........................ 29.7% 

55 and older .............. 32.1% 

The 18 through 24 years old, 

inclusive, age range is overrepresented 

in test samples relative to their numbers 

in the general driving population. There 

are two reasons for this. First, drivers in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11231 

111National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Traffic Safety Facts 2008,’’ 

NHTSA Technical Report DOT HS 811 170, 2010. 

112United States Government Accountability 

Office, ‘‘Older Driver Safety, Knowledge Sharing 

Should Help States Prepare for Increase in Older 

Driver Population,’’ Report to the Special 

Committee on Aging of the United States Senate, 

GAO–07–413, April 2007. 

113 International Standard 16673:2007, ‘‘Road 

Vehicles—Ergonomic Aspects of Transport 

Information and Control Systems—Occlusion 

Method to Assess Visual Demand due to the use of 

In-Vehicle Systems.’’ 

114 Ibid, P. 13. 

the 18 through 24 age range have a 

higher rate of fatalities (per 100,000 

drivers in that age range 111 or per 100 

million vehicle miles traveled 112) than 

do drivers that are 25 years of age or 

older. Second, at least anecdotally, 

younger drivers are more frequent user 

of electronic technology than are older 

drivers. Therefore, NHTSA believes that 

this age range should be 

overrepresented in each test participant 

sample. 

The 55 years and older age range is 

underrepresented in test samples 

relative to their numbers in the general 

driving population. While NHTSA 

considers it important that advanced 

electronic device tasks be tested using 

drivers in this age range, as mentioned 

above, older drivers are less frequent 

users of electronic technology than are 

younger drivers. Therefore, NHTSA is 

proposing to underweight this age range 

with six test participants rather than the 

eight called for by their numbers in the 

general driving population. 

NHTSA solicits comments on the age 

range and distribution of test 

participants that are recommended to be 

in each test participant sample. We 

could use the age distribution of drivers 

involved in fatal crashes as the primary 

factor in determining the age range and 

distribution of test participants. This 

would result in somewhat different age 

ranges and distributions than are listed 

above. Would this be better for ensuring 

safety while driving and using 

electronic devices? 

3. NHTSA also wishes to ensure that 

drivers of both genders be able to safely 

utilize in-vehicle devices. The United 

States driver population is 49.7 percent 

male and 50.3 percent female. For the 

relatively small test participant samples 

used for distraction testing, this implies 

that test participant samples should be 

evenly divided between men and 

women (i.e., each sample of 24 test 

participants should be balanced in 

gender overall and within each age 

range). 

4. Another of NHTSA’s concerns 

relates to ensuring that test participants 

are impartial with regard to the testing. 

To ensure fairness, test participants 

should not have any direct interest, 

financial or otherwise, in whether or not 

any of the devices being tested meets or 

does not meet the acceptance criteria. 

Therefore, NHTSA has added test 

participant impartiality criteria to its 

NHTSA Guidelines. 

While auto manufacturers may have 

multiple categories of employees that 

are not involved in vehicle systems or 

component development, NHTSA 

believes that automaker employees will 

tend to be generally more 

knowledgeable about vehicles and their 

current features than the average 

member of the public. With this 

additional knowledge of vehicles and 

their latest features, the employees may 

perform better in testing due to this 

exposure to the automotive industry. 

Therefore we feel that this impartiality 

criterion is essential to ensure that test 

results represent the performance of 

average U.S. drivers. We welcome 

comments on any available strategies 

that automakers may implement to 

ensure impartial test participation by 

employees. 

O. Occlusion Test Protocol 

NHTSA is proposing that its Option 

OCC: Occlusion Testing test protocol be 

the same as that specified in ISO 

16673:2007.113 ISO 16673:2007 

specifies a viewing interval (shutter 

open time) of 1.5 seconds followed by 

an occlusion interval (shutter closed 

time) of 1.5 seconds. NHTSA has 

selected the use of the ISO test protocol 

for its occlusion test protocol in the 

interests of promoting international 

regulatory harmonization. 

NHTSA’s past occlusion testing was 

performed with a viewing interval 

(shutter open time) of 1.5 seconds 

followed by an occlusion interval 

(shutter closed time) of 1.0 second. 

NHTSA is performing a study during 

the summer of 2011 to examine what 

effects, if any, this change to the length 

of the occlusion interval has on the 

results of occlusion testing. This study 

will also ensure that there are no 

unforeseen difficulties in performing 

occlusion testing using the ISO 

16673:2007 test protocol. 

ISO 16673:2007 states that occlusion 

testing results need to be corrected for 

system response delays that are greater 

than 1.5 seconds.114 However, since the 

NHTSA Guidelines specify that the 

maximum device response time for a 

device input should not exceed 0.25 

second, no correction is needed for 

occlusion testing performed under the 

NHTSA Guidelines. 

NHTSA is proposing to set the 

maximum recommended total viewing 

interval (total shutter open time) for a 

task to be accessible to the driver while 

driving at 9.0 seconds. As was 

previously discussed, NHTSA is 

proposing to set the maximum 

recommended total glance time (time 

during which the driver’s eyes are 

looking at the device upon which the 

task is being performed) for a task to be 

accessible to the driver while driving for 

Option EGDS: Eye Glance Testing Using 

a Driving Simulator at 12.0 seconds of 

total eyes-off-road time. The acceptance 

criteria for Option OCC: Occlusion 

Testing should be consistent with the 

Option EGDS acceptance criteria. 

Applying the earlier explained field 

factor of 75 percent to the 12.0 seconds 

of total eyes-off-road time criteria that 

NHTSA is proposing for Option EGDS: 

Eye Glance Testing Using a Driving 

Simulator gives a maximum permitted 

total shutter open time for the NHTSA 

Guidelines Option OCC: Occlusion 

Testing of 9.0 seconds. 

P. Task Performance Errors During 

Testing 

Reaching the desired end state of a 

secondary task is generally only 

possible if the driver follows the correct 

steps to complete the task and makes no 

mistakes. If the driver presses the wrong 

button or inputs an incorrect character, 

a correction typically must be made in 

order to reach the desired end state. An 

interface associated with frequent input 

errors by the driver could reasonably be 

considered a greater source of 

distraction than one for which task 

performance is performed without 

errors. Therefore, for the purposes of 

these NHTSA Guidelines only data from 

‘‘error-free’’ test trials performed by test 

participants should be used for 

determining whether a task is suitable 

for performance while driving. Using 

only data from error-free test trials 

improves testing repeatability. 

The precise definition of an error 

during device testing is difficult to 

develop. NHTSA proposes that an error 

would be considered to have occurred 

during a test trial if the test participant 

has to backtrack or delete already 

entered inputs. If the device can 

accommodate an incorrect entry without 

requiring backtracking and extra inputs 

beyond those necessary to reach the 

desired end state of the task, then no 

error would be deemed to have 

occurred. For example, suppose that a 

task on a device could be accomplished 

either by pressing Button ‘‘A’’ or by 

pressing first Button ‘‘B’’ and then 

Button ‘‘C.’’ If a test participant were 

asked to perform this task, either 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11232 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

115More specifically, the NHTSA Driver 

Distraction Guidelines recommend disabling 

unreasonably distracting tasks/device unless either 

(1) the vehicle’s engine is not running, or (2) the 

vehicle’s transmission is in ‘‘Park’’ (automatic 

transmission vehicles) or the vehicle’s transmission 

is in ‘‘Neutral’’ and the parking brake is on (manual 

transmission vehicles). 

116Shutko, J., Mayer, K., Laansoo, E., and 

Tijerina, L., ‘‘Driver Workload Effects of Cell Phone, 

Music Player, and Text Messaging Tasks with the 

Ford SYNC Voice Interface versus Handheld VisualManual Interfaces,’’ Ford Motor Company, SAE 

Paper 2009–01–0786, 2009. 

117Owens, J. M., McLaughlin, S. B., and 

Sudweeks, J., ‘‘On-Road Comparison of Driving 

pressing Button ‘‘A’’ or pressing first 

Button ‘‘B’’ and then Button ‘‘C’’ would 

result in a valid trial. If however, the 

test participant first pressed Button ‘‘B,’’ 

then reset the device, and then pressed 

Button ‘‘A’’ an error would have 

occurred. 

A record should be kept during 

testing as to whether one or more errors 

occurred during each test trial. If errors 

occur during more than 50 percent of 

test trials while testing a sample of test 

participants, then that task is deemed an 

‘‘unreasonably difficult task.’’ 

Unreasonably difficult tasks are not 

recommended for performance while 

driving and should be locked out. (Note 

that in order to check NHTSA’s 

acceptance criteria; it is necessary for 24 

test participants to successfully 

complete each task. This may require 

testing more than 24 subjects.) 

Q. Limited NHTSA Guidelines for 

Passenger Operated Equipment 

The NHTSA Guidelines are 

appropriate primarily for devices that 

are intended to be operated by the 

vehicle driver. For the sake of clarity, 

NHTSA believes it necessary to make a 

few general statements about passenger 

operated equipment. 

The NHTSA Guidelines should be 

appropriate for any devices that the 

driver can easily see and/or reach. For 

any in-vehicle device that is within 

sight and reach of the driver (even if it 

is intended for use solely by 

passengers), any task that has associated 

with its performance an unacceptable 

level of distraction should be locked out 

whenever the vehicle’s engine is on and 

its transmission is not in ‘‘Park’’ (the 

vehicle’s transmission in ‘‘Neutral’’ and 

parking brake engaged for manual 

transmission vehicles). 

The NHTSA Guidelines are not 

appropriate for any device that is 

located fully behind the front seat of the 

vehicle. Similarly, the NHTSA 

Guidelines are not appropriate for any 

front-seat device that cannot reasonably 

be reached or seen by the driver. 

VII. Implementation Considerations for 

the NHTSA Guidelines 

A. Current Vehicles That Meet the 

NHTSA Guidelines 

All members of the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers have 

committed themselves to producing 

vehicles that meet the Alliance 

Guidelines. Five years have passed 

since the current version of the Alliance 

Guidelines was issued and NHTSA 

expects that most current vehicle 

models produced by Alliance members 

meet the Alliance Guidelines. However, 

this is an expectation based on 

statements by the Alliance’s members 

and is not based on any NHTSA testing 

of recently designed vehicle models. 

Some automobile manufacturers that 

are not members of the Alliance (e.g., 

Honda) have also committed to 

producing vehicles that meet the 

Alliance Guidelines. However, this 

commitment was made in 2010; 

therefore, most of their vehicles may not 

yet meet the Alliance Guidelines’ 

recommendations. 

Given the many common elements 

and details between the NHTSA 

Guidelines and the Alliance Guidelines, 

NHTSA believes that many in-vehicle 

device tasks will either meet the 

recommendations of these proposed 

NHTSA Guidelines or be close to doing 

so. The changes to existing devices and/ 

or vehicles that already meet the 

Alliance Guidelines so as to make them 

meet the NHTSA Guidelines are 

expected to be minor. 

There is no time frame in which 

vehicle manufacturers are expected to 

produce vehicles that meet these 

guidelines; meeting them is strictly 

voluntary. However, NHTSA believes 

that manufacturers will take the 

initiative to implement these guidelines 

in an effort to improve safety. 

Manufacturers choosing to implement 

these guidelines for existing vehicle 

models would likely make any 

necessary changes to meet the 

guidelines when a vehicle model 

undergoes a major revision. Typically, 

major revisions occur on about a fiveyear cycle for passenger cars and less 

frequently for light trucks. NHTSA 

believes that it would be feasible for 

manufacturers to make the necessary 

changes implementing these guidelines 

for existing vehicle models that undergo 

major revisions two or more years after 

the final issuance of these guidelines. 

Likewise, NHTSA believes it would be 

feasible for new vehicle models that 

come onto the market two or more years 

after the final issuance of these 

guidelines to meet them. 

B. Expected Effects of the NHTSA 

Guidelines 

The main effects that NHTSA hopes 

to achieve through its NHTSA 

Guidelines are better designed vehicles 

and integrated electronic device 

interfaces, neither of which exceeds a 

reasonable level of complexity for 

visual-manual secondary tasks. This 

will be accomplished through multiple 

recommendations that will discourage 

device interfaces that lack evidence of 

sound human factors principles in their 

designs. One important 

recommendation recommends a limit 

for allowable total eyes-off-road time for 

any one task. The NHTSA Guidelines 

would discourage the introduction of 

egregiously distracting integrated 

devices and non-driving tasks. 

The NHTSA Guidelines recommend 

against designing in-vehicle electronic 

systems that allow drivers to perform 

the following activities while the 

vehicle is ‘‘moving’’: 115

• Visual-manual text messaging, 

• Visual-manual internet browsing, 

• Visual-manual social media 

browsing, 

• Visual-manual navigation system 

destination entry by address, and 

• Visual-manual 10-digit phone 

dialing. 

The NHTSA Guidelines are expected 

to have little impact on current vehicle 

designs. For many current vehicles, the 

only integrated electronic device that is 

not required for driving is the stereo 

system (radio and CD player). Based on 

the research that was performed in 

support of the development these 

NHTSA Guidelines, integrated stereo 

systems would either already meet, or 

be easily modifiable to meet, these 

NHTSA Guidelines. For integrated 

electronic devices other than the stereo 

system, if such devices are incorporated 

into vehicles built by Alliance member 

companies (as well as some nonAlliance vehicle manufacturers), then 

they are already covered by that 

organization’s guidelines. Since the 

NHTSA Guidelines share many 

common elements with the Alliance 

Guidelines, NHTSA believes that many 

devices/vehicles would either meet the 

recommendations of its NHTSA 

Guidelines or be close to doing so. 

The NHTSA Guidelines are expected 

to have a larger impact on future devices 

that are integrated into vehicles. For 

future integrated original equipment 

devices, these NHTSA Guidelines are 

expected to encourage simple visualmanual driver interfaces. They should 

also help encourage the introduction of 

visual-manual non-driving tasks into the 

vehicle that are not unreasonably 

distracting. Research by Ford Motor 

Company 116 and VTTI 117 has shown 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11233 

Performance Measures When Using Handheld and 

Voice-Control Interfaces for Mobile Phones and 

Portable Music Players,’’ Virginia Tech 

Transportation Institute, SAE Paper 2010–0101036, 

April 2010. 

118Shutko, J., Mayer, K., Laansoo, E., and 

Tijerina, L., ‘‘Driver Workload Effects of Cell Phone, 

Music Player, and Text Messaging Tasks with the 

Ford SYNC Voice Interface versus Handheld VisualManual Interfaces,’’ Ford Motor Company, SAE 

Paper 2009–01–0786, 2009. 

119Owens, J. M., McLaughlin, S. B., and 

Sudweeks, J., ‘‘On-Road Comparison of Driving 

Performance Measures When Using Handheld and 

Voice-Control Interfaces for Mobile Phones and 

Portable Music Players,’’ Virginia Tech 

Transportation Institute, SAE Paper 2010–0101036, 

April 2010. 

reductions in Total Eyes-Off-Road Time 

through the use of an auditory-vocal 

driver-vehicle interface. As a result, 

NHTSA anticipates that manufacturers 

may consider relying more on auditoryvocal interactions for task performance 

in future device designs. 

The goal of the NHTSA Guidelines is 

not to prevent drivers from performing 

activities that they wish to perform 

while driving; instead, the goal is to 

improve vehicle safety. These NHTSA 

Guidelines identify only a few, clearly 

safety-detrimental tasks as ones that 

should not be accessible to a driver 

while operating a vehicle. NHTSA 

believes that, with thoughtful interface 

engineering and appropriate application 

of well designed auditory-vocal 

interfaces, drivers can continue to 

perform most of the activities that they 

wish to perform while driving and also 

have improved vehicle safety. 

As previously stated, for many current 

vehicles, the only integrated electronic 

device that is not required for driving is 

the stereo system (radio and CD player). 

Based on the research that was 

performed in support of the 

development the NHTSA Guidelines, 

many current integrated stereo systems 

already meet the recommendations of 

the NHTSA Guidelines. Other stereos 

would need to be modified so as to 

reduce their Total Eyes-Off-Road Time 

(TEORT) to perform a manual radio 

tuning to meet these NHTSA 

Guidelines. NHTSA does not know 

what percentage of existing integrated 

stereo systems would need to be 

redesigned. Nor do we know by how 

much the recommended stereo system 

modifications should improve safety. 

However, the recommended changes to 

existing integrated electronic devices 

would be expected to have a small but 

positive impact on vehicle safety. 

For integrated electronic devices other 

than the stereo system (when they 

exist), if such devices are installed into 

vehicles built by Alliance member 

companies (as well as some nonAlliance vehicle manufacturers), then 

they are already covered by that 

organization’s guidelines. Since the 

NHTSA Guidelines share many 

common elements with the Alliance 

Guidelines, many existing in-vehicle 

devices already either meet the 

recommendations of the NHTSA 

Guidelines or would be close to doing 

so. As a result, the NHTSA Guidelines 

are expected to encourage only minimal 

revisions to existing, integrated, original 

equipment devices. Therefore, the 

NHTSA Guidelines are expected to have 

only small benefits for many current, 

integrated, in-vehicle advanced 

electronic devices. 

The NHTSA Guidelines could have a 

larger impact on future devices that are 

integrated into vehicles. For future 

integrated original equipment devices, 

these NHTSA Guidelines encourage 

simpler visual-manual driver interfaces 

and task performance. They should also 

help encourage the introduction of 

visual-manual non-driving tasks into the 

vehicle that are not unreasonably 

distracting. As a result, NHTSA 

anticipates that future device designs 

may rely more on auditory-vocal 

interactions for task performance. 

NHTSA does not know the safety 

effects of the NHTSA Guidelines 

expected impact on future devices that 

are integrated into vehicles. The 

problem is one of trying to estimate the 

safety benefits of unknown future 

systems that meet the NHTSA 

Guidelines versus unknown future 

systems that do not meet the NHTSA 

Guidelines and which will, due to the 

influence of the NHTSA Guidelines, 

never be developed. For these future 

systems, we do not know what they will 

do, their market share, how often 

drivers will want to use them, or how 

much of a reduction in TEORT would 

result from the NHTSA Guidelines. The 

numerous unknown factors make it 

impossible to calculate meaningful 

estimates of benefits. However, the 

resulting impact is expected to have a 

positive impact on vehicle safety. 

There are certain non-driving tasks 

that are obviously inappropriate to 

perform while driving, such as the 

driver watching television. Many other 

in-vehicle device tasks are more 

reasonable to perform while driving but, 

when equipped with a visual-manual 

driver-vehicle interface, would be 

considered unreasonably distracting by 

the NHTSA Guidelines (and, therefore, 

a manufacturer choosing to apply the 

NHTSA Guidelines would lock out 

those tasks. However, research by Ford 

Motor Company 118 and VTTI 119 has 

shown that through the use of an 

auditory-vocal driver-vehicle interface 

reductions in Total Eyes-Off-Road Time 

can be attained. As a result, NHTSA 

believes that many of these in-vehicle 

device tasks may be suitable for 

performance by the driver while driving 

if performed via an auditory-vocal 

interface. 

Since most in-vehicle device tasks 

that are reasonable to perform while 

driving will still be performable while 

meeting the NHTSA Guidelines, 

NHTSA does not expect to affect the 

overall size of the in-vehicle device 

market with its NHTSA Guidelines. The 

goal of the NHTSA Guidelines is not to 

prevent drivers from performing 

reasonable tasks while driving but to 

enable them to perform such tasks in a 

minimally-distracting and safe manner. 

C. NHTSA Monitoring To Determine 

Whether Vehicles Meet Guideline 

Recommendations 

Since our voluntary NHTSA 

Guidelines are not a Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard, the degree to 

which in-vehicle devices meet the 

specified criteria would not be assessed 

in the context of a formal compliance 

program. However, NHTSA does intend 

to monitor whether vehicles meet these 

NHTSA Guidelines to help determine 

their effectiveness and sufficiency. 

NHTSA has not determined the nature 

of the monitoring it might adopt. At a 

minimum, some spot checking of 

vehicles is likely. 

NHTSA seeks comment as to how best 

to monitor manufacturers’ voluntary 

implementation of the 

recommendations contained in the 

NHTSA Guidelines. In particular, 

NHTSA requests input from 

commenters in response to the 

following questions: 

• Are these NHTSA Guidelines 

reasonable and applicable for meeting 

their intended goals? 

• How likely are vehicle 

manufacturers to adopt these NHTSA 

Guidelines? 

• How likely are equipment suppliers 

to adopt these NHTSA Guidelines? 

• How should NHTSA monitor 

adoption of these NHTSA Guidelines in 

order to evaluate their effectiveness? 

How should it make public the results 

of that monitoring? 

NHTSA will announce its plan for 

monitoring the adoption of these 

guidelines as part of the final notice for 

Phase 1 of the NHTSA Guidelines. 

VIII. Public Participation 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11234 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

comments are correctly filed in the 

Docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. 

Your comments must not be more 

than 15 pages long. (See 49 CFR 553.21.) 

We established this limit to encourage 

you to write your primary comments in 

a concise fashion. However, you may 

attach necessary additional documents 

to your comments. There is no limit on 

the length of the attachments. 

Comments may be submitted to the 

docket electronically by logging onto the 

Docket Management System Web site at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

You may also submit two copies of 

your comments, including the 

attachments, to Docket Management at 

the address given above under 

ADDRESSES. 

Please note that pursuant to the Data 

Quality Act, in order for substantive 

data to be relied upon and used by the 

agency, it must meet the information 

quality standards set forth in the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) and 

DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. 

Accordingly, we encourage you to 

consult the guidelines in preparing your 

comments. OMB’s guidelines may be 

accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s 

guidelines may be accessed at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

How can I be sure that my comments 

were received? 

If you wish Docket Management to 

notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit two copies, from which you 

have deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to Docket 

Management at the address given above 

under ADDRESSES. When you send a 

comment containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should include a cover 

letter setting forth the information 

specified in our confidential business 

information regulation. (See 49 CFR part 

512.) 

Will the agency consider late 

comments? 

We will consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

above under DATES. To the extent 

possible, we will also consider 

comments that are received after that 

date. If a comment is received too late 

for us to consider in developing any 

final guidelines, we will consider that 

comment as an informal suggestion for 

future guidelines. 

How can I read the comments submitted 

by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

by Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES. The 

hours of the Docket are indicated above 

in the same location. You may also see 

the comments on the Internet. To read 

the comments on the Internet, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. 

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date, we will continue 

to file relevant information in the 

Docket as it becomes available. Further, 

some people may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

periodically check the Docket for new 

material. 

IX. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal 

agencies and departments shall use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, using such technical 

standards as a means to carry out policy 

objectives or activities determined by 

the agencies and departments.’’ 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies, such as 

SAE. The NTTAA directs us to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when we decide not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

The agency is not aware of any 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards that are appropriate for driver 

distraction stemming from driver 

interactions with in-vehicle electronic 

devices. However, industry-developed 

standards do exist. These standards 

were reviewed and formed the basis for 

the NHTSA Guidelines outlined herein. 

In view of all of the research and 

analysis discussed above, NHTSA 

proposes the following voluntary 

NHTSA Guidelines for in-vehicle 

devices. 

X. Guidelines for Reducing VisualManual Driver Distraction During 

Interactions With In-Vehicle Devices 

I. Purpose. The purpose of these 

guidelines is to reduce the number of 

motor vehicle crashes and the resulting 

deaths and injuries that occur due to a 

driver being distracted from the primary 

driving task while performing nondriving activities with an integratedinto-the-vehicle electronic device. The 

guidelines are presented as an aid to 

manufacturers in designing in-vehicle 

devices so as to avoid unsafe driver 

distraction resulting from use of the 

devices. Manufacturers that choose to 

adhere to these guidelines do so 

voluntarily and compliance with them 

is not required. 

I.1 Protection Against Unreasonable 

Risks to Safety. Due to the rapid rate of 

development of electronic in-vehicle 

devices, the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot 

possibly evaluate the safety implications 

of every new device before it is 

introduced into vehicles. However, 

because they have obligations to recall 

and remedy vehicles or motor vehicle 

equipment they manufacture that 

present an unreasonable risk to safety 

(45 U.S.C. 30118–20), manufacturers 

bear such obligations with regard to 

integrated-into-the-vehicle electronic 

devices that create unreasonable risks to 

the driving public. 

I.2 Driver Responsibilities. Drivers 

are still responsible for the safety of 

people and property while driving and 

interacting with integrated-into-thevehicle electronic devices. Drivers 

retain the primary responsibility for 

ensuring the safe operation of the 

vehicle under all operating conditions. 

II. Scope. 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. They are not appropriate 

for driving controls, driver safety 

warning systems, any other electronic 

device that is necessary to drive a motor 

vehicle, or any other electronic device 

that has a driver interface that is 

specified by a Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard. Table 1 contains a nonexhaustive list of the types of devices 

for which these guidelines are 

appropriate. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11235 

TABLE 9—TYPES OF DEVICES AND

TASKS FOR WHICH THESE GUIDELINES ARE APPROPRIATE

Vehicle Information .... Vehicle Information 

Center. 

Emissions Controls. 

Fuel Economy Information. 

Navigation .................. Destination Entry. 

Route Following. 

Real-Time Traffic Advisory. 

Trip Computer Information. 

Communications ........ Caller Identification. 

Incoming Call Management. 

Initiating and Terminating Telephone 

Calls. 

Conference Telephoning. 

Walkie-Talkie-Like 

Services. 

Paging. 

E-mail. 

Reminders. 

Instant Messaging. 

Text Messaging. 

Entertainment ............ AM Radio. 

FM Radio. 

Satellite Radio. 

Pre-recorded Music 

Players, All Formats. 

Television. 

Video Displays. 

Advertising. 

Address Book. 

Internet Searching. 

Internet Content. 

News. 

Directory Services. 

II.1 Guidelines Intended for Driver 

Interfaces. These guidelines are 

appropriate primarily for driver 

interfaces of devices. They are 

appropriate to a limited extent (see 

Section VII) for devices intended for use 

by front seat passengers. They are not 

appropriate for devices that are located 

solely rearwards of the front seat of a 

vehicle. 

II.2 Only Driver Interfaces Covered. 

These guidelines are not appropriate for 

any aspect of covered devices other than 

their driver interfaces. Specifically, they 

do not cover a device’s electrical 

characteristics, material properties, or 

performance. 

II.3 Aftermarket and Portable 

Devices Not Covered. These guidelines 

are only appropriate for devices that are 

installed in a vehicle by the original 

manufacturer of the vehicle. 

II.4 Auditory-Vocal Interfaces Not 

Covered. These guidelines are not 

appropriate for devices having solely 

auditory-vocal interfaces or to the 

auditory-vocal portions of device’s 

interfaces that contain both auditoryvocal and visual-manual elements. 

II.5 Intended Vehicle Types. These 

guidelines are appropriate for all 

passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, and trucks and buses with a 

GVWR of not more than 10,000 pounds. 

III. Standards Included by Reference. 

III.1 International Standards 

Organization Standards. 

III.1.a ISO International Standard 

16673:2007(E), ‘‘Road Vehicles— 

Ergonomic Aspects of Transport 

Information and Control Systems— 

Occlusion Method to Assess Visual 

Demand due to the use of In-Vehicle 

Systems.’’ 

III.2 SAE Standards. 

III.2.a SAE Surface Vehicle 

Recommended Practice J941 MAR 2010, 

‘‘Motor Vehicle Drivers’ Eye Locations.’’ 

IV. Definitions. 

IV.1 General Definitions. 

IV.1.a Active Display Area means 

the portion of a display that is being 

used. It excludes unused display surface 

and any area containing physically 

manipulatable controls. 

IV.1.b Device means all components 

that a driver uses to perform secondary 

tasks (i.e., tasks other than their primary 

task of driving); whether stand-alone or 

integrated into another device. 

IV.1.c Distraction means the 

diversion of a driver’s attention from 

activities critical for safe driving to a 

competing activity. This diversion of 

attention may be due to non-driving 

related tasks or to driving related tasks 

involving information presented in an 

inefficient manner or demanding 

unnecessarily complex inputs by a 

driver. Driver distraction is 

accompanied by an approximately 

proportional decrease in driving 

performance that can vary based on 

driver characteristics and roadway 

environment. 

IV.1.d Downward Viewing Angle 

means the angle by which a driver has 

to look down from the horizontal to 

directly look at a device’s visual 

display. Both three-dimensional 

downward viewing angle and a twodimensional approximation are used in 

these guidelines. 

IV.1.e Driver’s Field of View means 

the forward view directly through the 

windshield, rear and side views through 

the other vehicle windows, as well as 

the indirect side and rear view provided 

by the vehicle mirror system. 

IV.1.f Driving means any condition 

in which the vehicle’s engine is running 

unless the vehicle’s transmission is in 

‘‘Park’’ (automatic transmission 

vehicles) or the vehicle’s transmission is 

in ‘‘Neutral’’ and the parking brake is on 

(manual transmission vehicles). 

IV.1.g Driving-Related Task means 

an activity performed by a driver that is 

essential to the operation and safe 

control of the vehicle. 

IV.1.h Function means an individual 

action that a device can perform. A 

device may have one or more functions. 

IV.1.j Glance means a single ocular 

fixation by a driver. When using eye 

tracker equipment that cannot 

distinguish different nearby locations of 

individual fixations, glance may also be 

used to refer to multiple fixations to a 

single area that the eye tracker treats as 

one ocular fixation. 

IV.1.k Glance Duration means the 

time from the moment at which the 

direction of gaze moves towards a target 

to the moment it moves away from that 

target. It should be noted that glance 

duration includes the transition time to 

a target and the dwell time on the target. 

IV.1.l Interaction means a 

transaction between a driver and a 

device. Interactions include control 

inputs (defined later) and data inputs 

(information that a driver sends or 

receives from the device that is not 

intended to control the device). 

Depending on the type of task and the 

goal, interactions may be elementary or 

more complex. For the visual-manual 

interfaces covered by this version of the 

NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines 

(NHTSA Guidelines), interactions are 

restricted to physical (manual or visual) 

actions. 

IV.1.m Lock Out means the disabling 

of one or more functions or features of 

a device unless either (1) the vehicle’s 

engine is not running, or (2) the 

vehicle’s transmission is in ‘‘Park’’ 

(automatic transmission vehicles) or the 

vehicle’s transmission is in ‘‘Neutral’’ 

and the parking brake is on (manual 

transmission vehicles). 

IV.1.n Nominal Driver Eye Point 

means the XC and ZC coordinates of the 

Cyclopean eye point as given by 

Equations (2) and (5), respectively, of 

SAE Surface Vehicle Recommended 

Practice J941 MAR 2010, Motor Vehicle 

Drivers’ Eye Locations. 

IV.1.o Subtend means, in a 

geometrical sense, to be opposite to and 

delimit (an angle or side). 

IV.2 Task-Related Definitions. 

IV.2.a Control Input means a 

transaction between a driver and a 

device that is intended to affect the state 

of a device. Control inputs may be 

initiated either by a driver or as a 

response to displayed information 

initiated by a device itself. For the 

visual-manual interfaces covered by this 

version of the NHTSA Guidelines, 

control inputs are restricted to manual 

control actions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11236 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

IV.2.b Dependent Task means a task 

that cannot be initiated until another 

task (referred to as the antecedent task) 

is first completed. Their start state is 

thus dependent upon the end state of 

another, antecedent, task. 

An antecedent task that is followed by 

a dependent task can be distinguished 

from a task that contains two subtasks 

by examining the end states of both the 

antecedent task and the dependent task. 

For the antecedent task-dependent task 

case, both tasks will end with the 

achievement of a driver goal (i.e., two 

driver goals will be achieved, one for 

the antecedent task and one for the 

dependent task). In contrast, for a task 

composed of two subtasks, only one 

driver goal will be achieved. 

For example, after choosing a 

restaurant from a navigation system’s 

point-of-interest list (antecedent task), a 

driver is offered an Internet function 

option of making a reservation at the 

restaurant (dependent task). The 

dependent task of making a reservation 

can only be initiated following the task 

of selecting a restaurant from within the 

navigation system. 

IV.2.c End of Data Collection means 

the time at which a test participant tells 

the experimenter ‘‘done’’ (or, by some 

means, indicates non-verbally the same 

thing). Test participant eye glances and 

vehicle driving performance are not 

examined after the end of data 

collection. If a test participant eye 

glance was in progress at the end of data 

collection, only the portion of it before 

the end of data collection is used. If the 

end of data collection occurs when the 

device is at the desired end state for a 

testable task, then a test participant has 

successfully completed the testable task. 

IV.2.d End State for a Testable Task 

means the pre-defined device state 

sought by a test participant to achieve 

the goal of that testable task. 

IV.2.e Error means that a test 

participant has made an incorrect input 

when performing a requested task 

during a test trial. An error has occurred 

if the test participant has to backtrack 

during performance of the task or delete 

already entered inputs. If the device can 

accommodate an incorrect entry without 

requiring backtracking and extra inputs 

beyond those necessary to reach the 

desired end state of the task, then no 

error is deemed to have occurred. 

IV.2.f Error-Free Trial means a test 

trial in which no errors are made by the 

test participant while completing the 

task. 

IV.2.g Goal means a device state 

sought by a driver. Goal achievement is 

defined as achieving a device state that 

meets the driver’s intended state, 

independent of the particular device 

being executed or method of execution. 

IV.2.h Secondary Task means, in 

these guidelines, any interaction a 

driver has with an in-vehicle device that 

is not directly related to the primary 

task of driving. These tasks may relate 

to driver comfort, convenience, 

communications, entertainment, 

information gain, or navigation. 

IV.2.i Start of Data Collection means 

the time at which the experimenter tells 

a test participant ‘‘begin’’ (or, by some 

means, issues a non-verbal command 

indicating the same thing). Test 

participant eye glances and vehicle 

driving performance are examined only 

after the start of data collection. If a test 

participant eye glance was in progress at 

the start of data collection, only the 

portion of it after the start of data 

collection is used. The start of data 

collection should occur when the device 

is at the start state for a testable task. 

IV.2.j Start State for a Testable Task 

means the pre-defined device state from 

which testing of a testable task always 

begins. This is frequently the ‘‘home’’ 

screen, default visual display state, or 

other default driver interface state from 

which a driver initiates performance of 

the testable task. For dependent tasks, 

the start state would be the end state of 

the previous testable task. 

For a testable task for which there is 

only one point (e.g., screen, visual 

prompt, step) screen from which the 

task can be initiated, that point would 

correspond to the start state. For a 

testable task which can be initiated from 

more than one point, one of these 

options is selected as the start state. 

(The desire here is to reduce the amount 

of testing needed to ensure adherence 

with these guidelines. It is generally not 

necessary to test all possible transitions 

into a testable task.) 

IV.2.k Sub-goal means an 

intermediate state on the path to the 

goal toward which a driver is working. 

It is often distinguishable from a goal in 

two ways: (1) It is usually not a state at 

which a driver would be satisfied 

stopping; and (2) it may vary in its 

characteristics and/or ordering with 

other sub-goals across hardware/ 

interface functions, and thus is system 

dependent. 

IV.2.l Subtask means a sub-sequence 

of control operations that is part of a 

larger testable task sequence—and 

which leads to a sub-goal that represents 

an intermediate state in the path to the 

larger goal toward which a driver is 

working. 

Subtasks should not be treated as 

separate dependent tasks. For example, 

entering the street name as part of 

navigation destination entry is not a 

separate task from entering the street 

number; rather, these are subtasks of the 

same task. 

IV.2.m Successful Task Completion 

means that a test participant has 

performed a testable task without 

substantial deviations from the correct 

sequence(s) of control inputs and 

achieved the desired end state for a 

testable task. 

IV.2.n Testable Task means a 

sequence of control operations 

performed using a specific method 

leading to a goal toward which a driver 

will normally persist until the goal is 

reached. A testable task begins with the 

device at a previously defined start state 

and proceeds, if the testable task is 

successfully completed, until the device 

attains a previously defined end state. 

A testable task is a secondary task that 

is performed using an electronic device 

with a specified sequence of control 

operations leading to a goal and a 

defined start state and end state. It is 

called a testable task because it is a 

secondary task that can be tested for 

adherence with these guidelines. While 

performing a testable task during testing 

to determine if a task causes an 

unacceptable level of distraction, data 

collection begins at start of data 

collection and continues until end of 

data collection. 

IV.3 Task-Related Explanatory 

Material. 

IV.3.a Testable tasks should be 

completely defined prior to any testing 

to determine whether they are suitable 

to perform while driving under these 

guidelines. 

IV.3.b For testable tasks that have a 

variety of possible inputs of different 

lengths (e.g., city names for navigation 

systems), a typical or average length 

input should be used. Precise averages 

need not be used and there may be some 

variation in length from input-to-input. 

For example, for the input of city names 

into a navigation system, a length 

restriction of 9 through 12 letters might 

be used. 

V. Device Interface 

Recommendations. Each device’s driver 

interface should meet the 

recommendations specified in Section V 

under the test procedures specified in 

Section VI of these guidelines. 

V.1 No Obstruction of View. 

V.1.a No part of the physical device 

should, when mounted in the manner 

intended by the manufacturer, obstruct 

a driver’s field of view. 

V.1.b No part of the physical device 

should, when mounted in the manner 

intended by the manufacturer, obstruct 

a driver’s view of any vehicle controls 

or displays required for the driving task. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11237 

V.2 Easy to See and Reach. The 

mounting location for a device should 

not be in a location that is difficult to 

see and/or reach (as appropriate) while 

driving. 

V.3 Maximum Display Downward 

Angle. Each device’s display(s) should 

be mounted in a position where the 

downward viewing angle, measured at 

the geometric center of each active 

display area and determined as 

explained in Subsection VI.1, is less 

than at least one of the following two 

angles: 

• The 2D Maximum Downward 

Angle, or 

• The 3D Maximum Downward 

Angle. 

When the 2D Maximum Downward 

Angle is used, the downward viewing 

angle is determined as explained in 

Subsection VI.1.a. When the 3D 

Maximum Downward Angle is used, the 

downward viewing angle is determined 

as discussed in Subsection VI.1.b. 

V.3.a The 2D Maximum Downward 

Angle is equal to 30.00 degrees for a 

vehicle with the height above the 

ground of the nominal driver eye point 

less than or equal to 1700 millimeters 

above the ground. 

V.3.e Visual displays that present 

information highly relevant to the 

driving task and/or visually-intensive 

information should have downward 

viewing angles that are as close as 

practicable to a driver’s forward line of 

sight. Visual displays that present 

information less relevant to the driving 

task should have lower priority, when it 

comes to locating them to minimize 

their downward viewing angles, than 

displays that present information highly 

relevant to the driving task. 

V.4 Lateral Display Position. Visual 

displays that present information 

relevant to the driving task and/or 

visually-intensive information should 

be laterally positioned as close as 

practicable to a driver’s forward line of 

sight. 

V.5 Per se Lock Outs. The following 

in-vehicle device tasks should always be 

locked out unless either (1) the vehicle’s 

engine is not running, or (2) the 

vehicle’s transmission is in ‘‘Park’’ 

(automatic transmission vehicles) or the 

vehicle’s transmission is in ‘‘Neutral’’ 

and the parking brake is on (manual 

transmission vehicles): 

V.5.a Displaying dynamic or static 

visual photographic or graphical images 

not related to driving including, but not 

limited to: 

V.5.a.i Video-based entertainment in 

view of the driver; and 

V.5.a.ii Video-based 

communications including video phone 

calls and other forms of video 

communication. 

V.5.b Dynamic map displays. The 

display of either static or quasi-static 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2EN24FE12.059</GPH>
11238 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

maps (quasi-static maps are static maps 

that are updated frequently, perhaps as 

often as every few seconds, but are not 

continuously moving) for the purpose of 

providing driving directions is 

acceptable. Dynamic, continuouslymoving maps are not recommended. 

V.5.c The display of rearview images 

for the purposes of aiding a driver in 

performing a backing maneuver should 

not be locked out when presented in 

accordance with the allowable 

circumstances specified in FMVSS No. 

111. 

V.5.d Displaying static photographic 

or graphical images not related to 

driving. However, displaying drivingrelated images including icons, line 

drawings, and either static or quasistatic maps is acceptable. 

V.5.e Automatically scrolling text. 

The display of continuously moving text 

is not recommended. The visual 

presentation of limited amounts of static 

or quasi-static text is acceptable 

V.5.f Manual text entry. A driver 

should not enter more than six button 

or key presses during a single task. This 

would include drafting text messages 

and keyboard-based text entry. 

V.5.g Reading more than 30 

characters (not counting punctuation 

marks, counting each number, no matter 

how many digits it contains, as one 

character, and counting units such as 

mph as just one character) of visually 

presented text. 

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. 

V.6 Task Lock Outs. Any secondary 

task that draws a driver’s attention from 

the primary driving task to the point 

where safety is reduced, as determined 

by the test procedure contained in 

Subsection VI.2, should be locked out 

unless either (1) the vehicle’s engine is 

not running, or (2) the vehicle’s 

transmission is in ‘‘Park’’ (automatic 

transmission vehicles) or the vehicle’s 

transmission is in ‘‘Neutral’’ and the 

parking brake is on (manual 

transmission vehicles). 

V.7 Sound Level. Devices should not 

produce uncontrollable sound levels 

liable to mask warnings from within the 

vehicle or outside or to cause distraction 

or irritation. 

V.8 Single-Handed Operation. 

Devices should allow a driver to leave 

at least one hand on the vehicle’s 

steering control. All tasks that require 

manual control inputs (and can be done 

with the device while the vehicle is in 

motion) should be executable by a 

driver in a way that meets all of the 

following criteria: 

V.8.a When manual device controls 

are placed in locations other than on the 

steering control, no more than one hand 

should be required for manual input to 

the device at any given time during 

driving. 

V.8.b When device controls are 

located on the steering wheel and both 

hands are on the steering wheel, no 

device tasks should require 

simultaneous manual inputs from both 

hands. 

V.8.c A driver’s reach to the device’s 

controls should allow one hand to 

remain on the steering control at all 

times. 

V.8.d Reach of the whole hand 

through steering wheel openings should 

not be required for operation of any 

device controls. 

V.9 Interruptability. Devices should 

not require uninterruptible sequences of 

visual-manual interactions by a driver. 

A driver should be able to resume an 

operator-interrupted sequence of visualmanual interactions with a device at the 

point of interruption or at another 

logical point in the sequence. This 

subsection, including all of its following 

sub-parts, is not appropriate for device 

output of dynamically changing data. 

V.9.a Except as stated in Subsection 

V.9.e, no device-initiated loss of partial 

driver input (either data or command 

inputs) should occur automatically. 

V.9.b Drivers may initiate 

commands that erase driver inputs. 

V.9.c A visual display of previouslyentered data or current device state 

should be provided to remind a driver 

of where the task was left off. 

V.9.d If feasible, necessary, and 

appropriate, the device should offer to 

aid a driver in finding the point to 

resume the input sequence or in 

determining the next action to be taken. 

Possible aids include, but are not 

limited to: 

• A visually displayed indication of 

where a driver left off, 

• A visually displayed indication of 

input required to complete the task, or 

• An indication to aid a driver in 

finding where to resume the task. 

V.9.e Devices may revert 

automatically to a previous or default 

state without the necessity of further 

driver input after a device defined timeout period, provided: 

• It is a low priority device state (one 

that does not affect safety-related 

functions or way finding), and 

• The state being left can be reached 

again with low driver effort. In this 

context, low driver effort is defined as 

either a single driver input or not more 

than four presses of one button. 

V.10 Response Time. A device’s 

response (e.g., feedback, confirmation) 

following driver input should be timely 

and clearly perceptible. The maximum 

device response time to a device input 

should not exceed 0.25 second. If device 

response time exceeds 0.25 second, a 

clearly perceptible indication should be 

given indicating that the device is 

responding. 

V.11 Disablement. Devices 

providing dynamic (i.e., moving) nonsafety-related visual information should 

provide a means by which that 

information is not seen by a driver. A 

device visually presenting dynamic 

non-safety-related information should 

make the information not seen by a 

driver through at least one of the 

following mechanisms: 

• Dimming the displayed 

information, 

• Turning off or blanking the 

displayed information, 

• Changing the state of the display so 

that the dynamic, non-safety-related 

information cannot be seen by a driver 

while driving, or 

• Positioning or moving the display 

so that the dynamic, non-safety-related 

information cannot be seen while 

driving. 

V.12 Lock Out Functions not 

Intended for Driving Use. Device 

functions not intended to be used by a 

driver while driving should be locked 

out (i.e., made inoperable unless either 

(1) the vehicle’s engine is not running, 

or (2) the vehicle’s transmission is in 

‘‘Park’’ (automatic transmission 

vehicles) or the vehicle’s transmission is 

in ‘‘Neutral’’ and the parking brake is on 

(manual transmission vehicles). 

V.13 Distinguish Devices not 

Intended for Driving Use. Devices 

should clearly distinguish between 

those aspects of a device which are 

intended for use by a driver while 

driving, and those aspects (e.g., specific 

functions, menus, etc.) that are not 

intended to be used while driving. 

V.14 Device Status. Information 

about current status, and any detected 

malfunction, within the device that is 

likely to have an adverse impact on 

safety should be presented to the driver. 

VI. Recommended Test Procedures. 

VI.1 Determination of Downward 

Viewing Angle. The downward viewing 

angle of each display is determined in 

two ways, two dimensionally (the 2D 

Downward Viewing Angle; Subsection 

VI.1.a explains how to calculate) and 

three dimensionally (the 3D Downward 

Viewing Angle; Subsection VI.1.b 

discusses how to calculate). As 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11239 

discussed in Subsection V.3, the 

downward viewing angle of each 

display should be less than at least one 

of the following two angles: 

• The 2D Maximum Downward 

Angle, or 

• The 3D Maximum Downward 

Angle. 

VI.1.a Determination of 2D 

Downward Viewing Angle. Create a 

fore-and-aft plane (Plane FA) through 

the nominal driver eye point as 

determined using the March 2010 

revision of SAE Surface Vehicle 

Recommended Practice J941 ‘‘Motor 

Vehicle Drivers’ Eye Locations.’’ Project 

the position of the geometric center of 

a display for which this angle is being 

determined laterally (while maintaining 

the same fore-and aft and vertical 

coordinates) onto Plane FA. Generate 

two lines in Plane FA, Line 1 and Line 

2. Line 1 is a horizontal line (i.e., 

maintaining the same vertical 

coordinate) going through the nominal 

driver eye point. Line 2 goes through the 

nominal driver eye point and the 

projected onto Plane FA geometric 

center of the display. The downward 

viewing angle is the angle from Line 1 

to Line 2. 

VI.1.b Determination of 3D 

Downward Viewing Angle. Generate 

two lines, Line 3 and Line 4. Line 3 is 

a horizontal line (i.e., maintaining the 

same vertical coordinate) going through 

the nominal driver eye point, as 

determined using the March 2010 

revision of SAE Surface Vehicle 

Recommended Practice J941 ‘‘Motor 

Vehicle Drivers’ Eye Locations,’’ and a 

point vertically above or at the 

geometric center of the display for 

which the angle is being determined. 

Line 4 goes through the nominal driver 

eye point and the geometric center of 

the display. The downward viewing 

angle is the angle from Line 3 to Line 

4. 

VI.2 Driving Simulator 

Recommendations. A driving simulator 

is used for most of the proposed test 

options (Options C, F, G, H, and J, 

below) for determining whether driver 

operation of a device while performing 

a secondary task produces an 

unacceptable level of distraction. The 

driving simulator used for distraction 

testing should conform to the 

recommendations in the following 

subsections. 

VI.2.a The driving simulator should 

be capable of testing using a substantial 

portion (the entire area that can be 

reached by a driver) of a full-size 

production vehicle cab. To set up this 

portion of a vehicle cab for testing, no 

modifications should be made to the 

dashboard or driver interface other than 

the addition of sensors to determine 

steering wheel angle, brake pedal 

position, and throttle pedal position, 

driver gaze location, headway (distance 

from the subject vehicle to a lead 

vehicle if one is present), lane position, 

and other desired data. The portion of 

the actual production vehicle cab being 

used for testing should be easily 

changeable. 

VI.2.b The driving simulator should 

use information collected by the 

steering wheel angle, brake pedal 

position, and throttle pedal position 

sensors, along with an appropriate 

vehicle dynamics simulation, to predict 

vehicle orientation and position, 

angular and linear velocities, and 

angular and linear accelerations. 

VI.2.c The driving simulator should 

record the following data channels at a 

minimum of 30 times per second: 

Steering wheel angle, brake pedal 

position, throttle pedal position, vehicle 

orientation and position, lane position, 

headway, vehicle speed, and vehicle 

lateral and longitudinal accelerations. 

Each of the above listed channels 

should either be calculated or measured 

with a sensor having an accuracy of ±2 

percent of full scale or better. The 

simulator should also have a means of 

determining the exact time of the start 

and end of each secondary task that is 

performed. 

VI.2.d For test paradigms that 

require the determination of eye glance 

location, the driving simulator should 

determine them in one of two ways: (1) 

Through the use of an eye tracker or (2) 

by collecting full motion video of each 

test participant’s face and, subsequent to 

testing, a human data reducer 

determines from this video the direction 

of a test participant’s gaze at each 

instant in time. 

VI.2.e The driving simulator should 

generate and display color (16 bit 

minimum color depth), computer 

generated imagery of the forward road 

scene. This imagery should be projected 

onto a large area screen in front of the 

vehicle. The portion of the projection 

screen on which computer generated 

imagery is displayed should have an 

area of at least 2083±25 mm wide by at 

least 1372±25 mm tall. The projection 

screen should be placed 4700±125 mm 

in front of the nominal driver eye point. 

The computer generated image should 

contain at least 880 by 500 pixels and 

should be updated at least 30 times per 

second. The time lag to calculate the 

computer generated imagery should not 

be more than 0.10 second. 

VI.2.f For test paradigms that require 

the performance of a visual detection 

task, the driving simulator should be 

capable of displaying the target to be 

detected. 

VI.2.f.i The target to be detected 

consists of a filled-in, red circle. The 

target should be sized such that it 

subtends a visual angle of 1.0±0.2 

degrees. It may be displayed in any one 

of six positions. These positions are: 

vertically—all approximately at horizon 

height, and horizontally, with respect to 

the driver’s head position—9±1, 5±5, 

and 1±1 to the left of straight ahead, and 

10±1, 14±5, and 17±1 degrees to the 

right of straight ahead. 

VI.2.f.ii The target is displayed in 

one position at a time. The target is 

displayed in a particular, randomlyselected (via a pick from a uniform 

probability distribution) position for 1.5 

seconds or until the participant 

responds. The target disappears if a test 

participant responds (via the microswitch discussed in Subsection VI.2.g) 

while it is displayed or within 0.5 

seconds after the target disappears. After 

the target disappears, it is not displayed 

for a period of time that varies randomly 

(via a pick from a uniform probability 

distribution) from 3.0 to 5.0 seconds. 

VI.2.g For test paradigms that 

require the performance of a visual 

detection task, the driving simulator 

should be capable of recording both the 

time at which each target begins to be 

displayed and the time when a test 

participant responds. 

VI.2.g.i Test participant responses 

are recorded based on the wirelesslytransmitted output of a finger-mounted 

button micro-switch. The button microswitch should be mounted, if feasible, 

on the index finger of a test participant’s 

left hand in such a way that a test 

participant can easily momentarily 

depress the micro-switch button when 

he or she sees a target displayed. 

VI.2.g.ii If it is not feasible to mount 

the button micro-switch on the index 

finger of a test participant’s left hand, 

mount the button micro-switch in a 

convenient location such that it can be 

easily pressed while driving. 

VI.2.g.iii If a test participant starts 

pressing the micro-switch button either 

while the target is displayed or within 

0.5 seconds of the completion of a target 

display, it is counted as a correct 

response. 

VI.2.g.iv For correct responses only, 

the Visual Detection Task Response 

Time is equal to the time from the 

beginning of the target display to the 

start of the micro-switch button press. 

This measure cannot be calculated for 

incorrect responses. 

VI.2.h The driving simulator should 

display the vehicle’s speed to a driver. 

VI.2.j The driving simulator should 

be capable of simulating the driving 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11240 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

scenarios described elsewhere in this 

document. 

VI.3 Recommended Driving 

Simulator Scenario. 

VI.3.a The road being simulated 

should: 

VI.3.a.i Be undivided and four lanes 

wide, 

VI.3.a.ii Have a solid double yellow 

line down the center, 

VI.3.a.iii Have solid white lines on 

the outside edges, 

VI.3.a.iv Have dashed white lines 

separating the two lanes that go in each 

direction, 

VI.3.a.v Be flat (no grade or road 

crown), and 

VI.3.a.vi Have a speed limit of 55 

mph. 

VI.3.a.vii All test data collection is 

performed on straight road segments. 

However, the road being simulated may, 

if desired, contain occasional curved 

segments not in the area used for data 

collection. 

VI.3.b The driving scenario should 

proceed as follows: 

VI.3.b.i The subject vehicle begins 

motionless in the right lane of the road. 

VI.3.b.ii Test participant accelerates 

vehicle up to approximately the speed 

limit. 

VI.3.b.iii After approximately 360 

meters of travel, the lead vehicle, which 

is initially traveling at the speed limit, 

appears in the travel lane in front of the 

subject vehicle at the desired following 

distance. 

VI.3.b.iv The subject vehicle then 

follows the lead vehicle for the 

remainder of the test. This is defined as 

the car following portion of the test. 

VI.3.c All testing is performed while 

driving in the right lane of the simulated 

road. 

VI.3.d A test participant should 

begin performing secondary tasks as 

soon as feasible after the start of the car 

following portion of the test. 

VI.3.e The speed of the lead vehicle, 

as a function of time, will be specified 

for each test. Each of the test options, 

below, that use a driving simulator 

(Options EGDS, DS–BM, DS–FC, DFD– 

BM, and DFD–FC) state the lead vehicle 

speed as a function of time. 

VI.3.f Once the subject vehicle is 

following the lead vehicle, oncoming or 

adjacent lane traffic may begin to 

appear. The oncoming or adjacent lane 

traffic that is present is specified for 

each of the test options, below, that use 

a driving simulator (Options EGDS, DS– 

BM, DS–FC, DFD–BM, and DFD–FC). 

VI.4 Test Participant 

Recommendations. 

VI.4.a General Criteria. Each test 

participant should meet the following 

general criteria: 

VI.4.a.i Be in good general health, 

VI.4.a.ii Be an active driver with a 

valid driver’s license, 

VI.4.a.iii Drive a minimum of 7,000 

miles per year, 

VI.4.a.iv Be in the age range of 18 

through 75 years of age, inclusive, 

VI.4.a.v Have experience using a 

wireless phone while driving, 

VI.4.a.vi Be comfortable 

communicating via text messages, and 

VI.4.a.vii Be unfamiliar with the 

device(s) being tested. 

VI.4.b Mix of Ages in Each Test 

Participant Sample. Out of each group 

of twenty-four test participants used for 

testing a particular in-vehicle device 

task, there should be: 

VI.4.b.i Six test participants 18 

through 24 years old, inclusive, 

VI.4.b.ii Six test participants 25 

through 39 years old, inclusive, 

VI.4.b.iii Six test participants 40 

through 54 years old, inclusive, and 

VI.4.b.iv Six test participants 55 

years old or older. 

VI.4.c Even Mix of Genders in Each 

Test Participant Sample. Each sample of 

twenty-four test participants used for 

testing a particular in-vehicle device 

task, should contain: 

VI.4.c.i Twelve men and twelve 

women overall, and 

VI.4.c.ii An equal balance of men 

and women in each of the age ranges 18 

through 24 years old, 25 through 39 

years old, 40 through 54 years old, and 

55 years old and older. 

VI.4.d Test Participant Impartiality. 

Test participants should be impartial 

with regard to the testing. To ensure 

fairness, test participants should not 

have any direct interest, financial or 

otherwise, in whether or not any of the 

devices being tested meets or does not 

meet the acceptance criteria. (While 

auto manufacturers may have multiple 

categories of employees that are not 

involved in vehicle systems or 

component development, NHTSA 

believes that automaker employees will 

tend to be generally more 

knowledgeable about vehicles and their 

current features than the average 

member of the public. With this 

additional knowledge of vehicles and 

their latest features, the employees may 

perform better in testing due to this 

exposure to the automotive industry. 

Therefore, their use as test participants 

is discouraged.) 

VI.5 Test Participant Device 

Training Recommendations. Each test 

participant should be given training as 

to how to operate the driving simulator 

(if one is being used) and how to 

perform each of the desired secondary 

tasks using the devices being evaluated. 

VI.5.a Test instruction should be 

standardized and be presented either 

orally or in writing. The display and 

controls of the interface should be 

visible during instruction. An 

instruction may be repeated at the 

request of a test participant. 

VI.5.b Each test participant should 

have the vehicle’s controls and displays 

explained to them, and shown how to 

adjust the seat. Since the vehicle’s 

mirrors are not used during this testing, 

there is no need to explain to test 

participants how to adjust them. 

VI.5.c Each test participant should 

be given instructions on the driving 

scenario that they are to perform. These 

should include: 

VI.5.c.i That he or she should drive 

in the right lane, and 

VI.5.c.ii That, as a driver, their 

primary responsibility is to drive safely 

at all times. 

VI.5.d Test participants should be 

told the speed at which they are to drive 

prior to the beginning of car following. 

Test participants should be told that, 

once in car following mode, they should 

follow the lead vehicle at as close to a 

constant following distance as they can 

manage. 

VI.5.e Test participants should be 

given specific detailed instructions and 

practice as to how to perform each 

secondary task of interest on each 

device being studied before that 

particular driving trial. 

VI.5.f Test participants should 

practice each secondary task of interest 

on each device being studied with the 

driving simulator with the vehicle 

parked. This practice may also be 

performed in a separate parked vehicle. 

A test participant should practice a task 

as many times as needed until they 

think that they have become 

comfortable in performing the task. 

VI.6 Eye Glance Measurement. 

While driving the simulator and 

performing the secondary task, the 

length of each test participants eye 

glances away from the forward roadway 

should be recorded and determined. 

VI.6.a Eye glance durations should 

be determined in one of two ways: (1) 

through the use of an eye tracker or (2) 

by collecting full motion video of each 

test participant’s face and, subsequent to 

testing, a data reducer determines from 

this video the direction of a test 

participant’s gaze at each instant in 

time. 

VI.6.b The length of an individual 

glance is determined as the time 

associated with any eye glances away 

from the forward roadway. Due to the 

driving scenario, eye glances to the side 

of the roadway or to the vehicle’s 

mirrors are expected to be minimal. 

VI.6.c Ensuring eye tracker accuracy 

and repeatability. If an eye tracker is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11241 

used, the testing organization should 

have a procedure for ensuring the 

accuracy and repeatability of eye glance 

locations. This will require collecting 

full motion video of a small sample of 

test participant’s faces and having data 

reducer determine from this video the 

direction of a test participant’s gaze at 

each instant in time. The testing 

organization should also have a written 

procedure for setting up and calibrating 

the eye tracker. 

VI.6.d Ensuring Full Motion Video 

Reduction Accuracy and Repeatability. 

If full motion video is used, the testing 

organization should have a procedure 

for ensuring the accuracy and 

repeatability of eye glance locations. 

This will involve having multiple data 

reducers analyze the same, relatively 

short segment(s) of full motion video 

and checking that they obtained the 

same glance locations. The testing 

organization should also have a written 

procedure for instructing and training 

data reducers as to how to determine 

eye glance locations. To the extent 

possible, data reducers should not have 

an interest as to whether a secondary 

task/device being tested meets the 

acceptance criteria. Data reducers 

should not be closely involved with the 

development of a device. 

VI.7 Task Performance Errors 

During Testing. 

VI.7.a ‘‘Error-Free’’ Performance 

During Testing. During testing, only 

data from ‘‘error-free’’ test trials 

performed by test participants should be 

used for determining whether a task is 

suitable for performance while driving. 

VI.7.b Unreasonably Difficult Tasks. 

A record should be kept during testing 

as to whether one or more errors 

occurred during each test trial. If errors 

occur during more than 50 percent of 

test trials while testing a sample of 24 

test participants, then that task is 

deemed an ‘‘unreasonably difficult task’’ 

for performance by a driver while 

driving. Unreasonably difficult tasks are 

not recommended for performance 

while driving and should be locked out. 

VI.8 Determination That a Task 

Should Be Locked Out. Any task that 

draws a driver’s attention from the 

primary driving task to the point where 

it does not comply with the Subsection 

VI.8 test procedures, should either be 

located and oriented so that it cannot be 

seen by a driver unless either (1) the 

vehicle’s engine is not running, or (2) 

the vehicle’s transmission is in ‘‘Park’’ 

(automatic transmission vehicles) or the 

vehicle’s transmission is in ‘‘Neutral’’ 

and the parking brake is on (manual 

transmission vehicles). The following 

table summarizes the test procedures 

that are currently being considered to 

determine which tasks should be locked 

out. 

TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF DISTRACTION TEST PROTOCOLS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA CONSIDERED BY NHTSA 

Option letter Test name Performance measures Acceptance criteria Testing venue 

EGDS ........... Eye Glance Testing Using a 

Driving Simulator.

• Duration of individual eye 

glances away from forward 

road view.

• Sum of individual eye 

glance durations away from 

forward road view.

• 85% of individual glance 

durations less than 2.0 seconds.

• Mean of individual glance 

durations less than 2.0 seconds.

• Sum of individual eye 

glance durations less than 

or equal to 12.0 seconds.

Driving Simulator. 

OCC ............. Occlusion Testing ................... • Sum of shutter open times • Sum of shutter open times 

less than 9.0 seconds.

Occlusion. 

STEP ............ Step Counting ......................... • Number of steps required 

for task.

• Less than 6 steps required 

for task.

Task Analysis. 

DS–BM ......... Driving Test Protocol with 

Benchmark.

• Standard deviation of headway.

• Lane exceedances. 

• Performance measures not 

greater than benchmark values.

Driving Simulator. 

DS–FC ......... Driving Test Protocol with 

Fixed Acceptance Criteria.

• Same as Option DS–BM .... • Performance measures not 

greater than specified values.

Driving Simulator. 

DFD–BM ...... Dynamic Following and Detection Protocol with Benchmark.• Duration of individual eye 

glances away from forward 

road view.

• Sum of individual eye 

glance durations away from 

forward road view.

• Standard deviation of lane 

position.

• Car following delay. 

• Percent of visual targets detected.

• Visual detection response 

time.

• Option EGDS eye glance 

acceptance criteria plus.

• Performance measures less 

than benchmark values.

Driving Simulator. 

DFD–FC ....... Dynamic Following and Detection Protocol with Fixed 

Acceptance Criteria.

• Same as Option DFD–FC. • Option EGDS eye glance 

acceptance criteria plus.

• Performance measures less 

than specified values.

Driving Simulator. 

Note: Manufacturers are free to use any testing protocol that they desire to ensure that their products adhere to the NHTSA Guidelines. 

Option EGDS: Eye Glance Testing Using 

a Driving Simulator 

EGDS.1 Test Apparatus. Testing 

should be performed using a driving 

simulator that meets the 

recommendations contained in 

Subsection VI.2 using the driving 

scenario described in Subsection VI.3. 

EGDS.2 Lead Vehicle Speed. For this 

testing, the lead vehicle should travel at 

a constant speed of 50 mph. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11242 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

EGDS.3 Test Device. The device 

under investigation should be 

operational and fitted to a vehicle or 

simulator buck. 

EGDS.4 Test Participants. 

EGDS.4.a Twenty-four test 

participants should be enrolled using 

the procedures described in Subsection 

VI.4. 

EGDS.4.b Test participants initially 

should be unfamiliar with the device 

being tested. As part of the test protocol, 

they should be trained in the use of the 

device(s) that are being tested using the 

procedures described in Subsection 

VI.5. 

EGDS.5 Test Instructions. Test 

instruction should be standardized and 

be presented either in oral or written 

format. The display and controls of the 

interface should be visible during 

instruction. An instruction may be 

repeated at the request of a test 

participant. 

EGDS.6 Number of Trials. Each test 

participant should drive the driving 

scenario two times, one time not 

performing any secondary task (the 

Familiarization Trial), and a second 

time performing the secondary task 

being studied (the Data Trial). 

EGDS.7 Eye Glance Determination. 

Eye glances are determined for each test 

participant while performing each 

secondary task using the techniques 

described in Subsection VI.6. 

EGDS.8 Acceptance Criteria. A task 

should not be allowed to be performed 

by drivers unless either (1) The vehicle’s 

engine is not running, or (2) the 

vehicle’s transmission is in ‘‘Park’’ 

(automatic transmission vehicles) or the 

vehicle’s transmission is in ‘‘Neutral’’ 

and the parking brake is on (manual 

transmission vehicles), or (3) the 

following three criteria are all met: 

EGDS.8.a For any of the test 

participants, no more than fifteen 

percent (rounded up) of the total 

number of eye glances away from the 

forward road scene should last for more 

than 2.0 seconds while performing the 

secondary task one time. 

EGDS.8.b For at least twenty-one of 

the twenty-four test participants, the 

mean of all eye glances away from the 

forward road scene should be less than 

2.0 seconds while performing the 

secondary task one time. 

EGDS.8.c For at least twenty-one of 

the twenty-four test participants, the 

sum of the durations of each individual 

participant’s eye glances away from the 

forward road scene should be less than, 

or equal to, 12.0 seconds while 

performing the secondary task one time. 

EGDS.9 Multiple Trials. To improve 

testing efficiency, multiple Data Trials 

should be allowed to be made by the 

same subject. Only one Familiarization 

Trial needs to be performed, prior to any 

desired number of Data Trials. Also, 

multiple secondary tasks can be tested, 

one after another, during the same Data 

Trial. 

Option OCC: Occlusion Testing 

OCC.1 Test Apparatus. Intermittent 

viewing of a device interface can be 

provided by various means such as 

commercially-available occlusion 

goggles, a shutter in front of the 

interface, or some other means. 

OCC.1.a Either the occlusion 

goggles, the shutter in front of the 

interface, or other means used should be 

transparent during the viewing interval 

and opaque during the occlusion 

interval. 

OCC.1.b During the occlusion 

interval, neither the interface displays 

nor controls should be visible to a test 

participant. 

OCC.1.c During the occlusion 

interval, operation of the device controls 

by a test participant should be 

permitted. 

OCC.1.d The switching process 

between the viewing interval and the 

occlusion interval should occur in less 

than twenty (20) milliseconds and vice 

versa. 

OCC.1.e Either the occlusion 

goggles, the shutter in front of the 

interface, or the other means of 

allowing/blocking a test participant’s 

vision should be electronically 

controlled. 

OCC.1.f The illumination levels 

during the viewing and occlusion 

intervals should be comparable so that 

dark/light adaptation of test 

participants’ eyes is not necessary 

during the procedure. 

OCC.2 Test Device. The device 

under investigation should be 

operational and fitted to a vehicle, 

simulator buck, or vehicle mock-up in a 

design which duplicates the intended 

location of the interface in the vehicle 

(i.e., the viewing angle and control 

placement relationships should be 

maintained). 

OCC.3 Test Participants. 

OCC.3.a Twenty-four test 

participants should be enrolled using 

the procedures described in Subsection 

VI.4. 

OCC.3.b Test participants initially 

should be unfamiliar with the device 

being tested. As part of the test protocol, 

they should be trained in the use of the 

device(s) that are being tested using the 

procedures described in Subsection 

VI.5. 

OCC.4 Test Instructions. Test 

instruction should be standardized and 

be presented either in oral or written 

format. The display and controls of the 

interface should be visible during 

instruction. An instruction may be 

repeated at the request of a test 

participant. 

OCC.5 Test Procedure. Testing is 

performed in accordance with ISO 

International Standard 16673:2007, 

‘‘Road Vehicles—Ergonomic Aspects of 

Transport Information and Control 

Systems—Occlusion Method to Assess 

Visual Demand due to the use of InVehicle Systems’’ with the exception 

that where the ISO Standard states that 

at least ten participants are to be tested, 

the current guidelines have fixed this 

number at twenty-four participants to be 

tested. 

OCC.5.a The viewing interval 

(shutter open time) should be 1.5 

seconds. This should be followed by a 

1.5-second occlusion interval (shutter 

closed time). The sequence of viewing 

interval followed by occlusion interval 

should occur automatically without 

interruption until the task is completed 

or the trial is terminated. 

OCC.5.b The initial condition for 

testing is occlusion in which a test 

participant cannot see the device 

interface. 

OCC.5.c Task stimuli (e.g., 

addresses, phone numbers, etc.) are 

provided to a test participant prior to 

the start of testing. When the task 

stimuli are given to a test participant, 

the device should be occluded (i.e., a 

test participant cannot see the device 

interface) and it should remain 

occluded until after testing has begun. 

OCC.5.d Testing starts when a test 

participant tells the experimenter that 

he or she is ready to begin. The 

experimenter then triggers the 

alternating sequence of viewing 

intervals followed by occlusion 

intervals. A test participant starts 

performing the task at the beginning of 

the first viewing interval. 

OCC.5.e When a test participant has 

completed the task, he or she tells the 

experimenter that the task has been 

completed. The experimenter stops the 

shutter operation. 

OCC.5.f There should be an 

automatic means of recording the 

number of shutter open intervals 

required to complete the task. 

OCC.6 Acceptance Criterion. A task 

should not be allowed to be performed 

by drivers unless either (1) The vehicle’s 

engine is not running, or (2) the 

vehicle’s transmission is in ‘‘Park’’ 

(automatic transmission vehicles) or the 

vehicle’s transmission is in ‘‘Neutral’’ 

and the parking brake is on (manual 

transmission vehicles), or (3) the 

following criterion is met: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11243 

OCC.6.a For at least twenty-one of 

the twenty-four test participants, the 

task was successfully completed during 

six or fewer viewing intervals (i.e., a 

maximum of 9.0 seconds of shutter open 

time). 

OCC.7 Multiple Trials. To improve 

testing efficiency, multiple Data Trials 

should be allowed to be made by the 

same subject. Only one Familiarization 

Trial needs to be performed, prior to any 

desired number of Data Trials. Also, 

multiple secondary tasks can be tested, 

one after another, during the same Data 

Trial. 

Option STEP: Step Counting 

STEP.1 Task analysis. A task 

analysis is performed to decompose the 

secondary task being performed into an 

ordered sequence of its elemental 

components that a driver would perform 

in order to successfully complete a task. 

The elemental components of a task 

would include such driver actions as: 

• Pressing a single button, 

• Glancing at a device display, 

• Choosing an entry from a list, 

• Picking up an object, or 

• Putting down an object. 

STEP.2 Step Assignment. Each 

elemental component that constitutes a 

secondary task is assigned a number of 

steps as follows: 

STEP.2.a Each time that a driver 

presses a single button, one step is 

assigned except that if a driver is 

pressing the same button multiple times 

in rapid succession (e.g., pressing the 

‘‘3’’ button on a telephone three times 

to indicate an ‘‘f’’), all of the multiple 

button presses are assigned one step. 

STEP.2.b Each time that a driver 

looks at the device display, one step is 

assigned. 

STEP.2.c Each time that a driver 

chooses from an entry in a list, a 

variable number of steps are assigned. 

The number of steps assigned depends 

upon the length of the list as follows: 

STEP.2.c.i If there are one through 

five entries in the list, then five steps are 

assigned. 

STEP.2.c.ii If there are six through 

nine entries in the list, then seven steps 

are assigned. 

STEP.2.c.iii If there are ten or more 

entries in the list, then nine steps are 

assigned. 

STEP.2.d Each time a driver picks 

up an object, three steps are assigned. 

STEP.2.e Each time a driver puts 

down an object, one step is assigned. 

STEP.3 Add Steps Together. All of 

the steps that have been assigned from 

all of the elemental components that 

constitute a secondary task are added 

together. The resulting number is the 

number of steps to perform that 

secondary task. 

STEP.4 Acceptance Criterion. A task 

should not be allowed to be performed 

by drivers unless either (1) The vehicle’s 

engine is not running, or (2) the 

vehicle’s transmission is in ‘‘Park’’ 

(automatic transmission vehicles) or the 

vehicle’s transmission is in ‘‘Neutral’’ 

and the parking brake is on (manual 

transmission vehicles), or (3) the 

following criterion is met: 

STEP.4.a The number of steps to 

successfully complete the task is six or 

less. 

Option DS–BM: Driving Test Protocol 

With Benchmark 

DS–BM.1 Test Apparatus. Testing 

should be performed using a driving 

simulator that meets the 

recommendations contained in 

Subsection VI.2 using the driving 

scenario described in Subsection VI.3. 

DS–BM.2 Lead Vehicle Speed. For 

this testing, the lead vehicle should 

travel at a constant speed of 50 mph. 

DS–BM.3 Test Device. The device 

under investigation should be 

operational and fitted to a vehicle or 

simulator buck. 

DS–BM.4 Test Participants. 

DS–BM.4.a Twenty-four test 

participants should be enrolled using 

the procedures described in Subsection 

VI.4. 

DS–BM.4.b Test participants 

initially should be unfamiliar with the 

device being tested. As part of the test 

protocol, they should be trained in the 

use of the device(s) that are being tested 

using the procedures described in 

Subsection VI.5. 

DS–BM.5 Test Instructions. Test 

instruction should be standardized and 

be presented either in oral or written 

format. The display and controls of the 

interface should be visible during 

instruction. An instruction may be 

repeated at the request of a test 

participant. 

DS–BM.6 Number of Trials. Each 

test participant should drive the driving 

scenario six (6) times, one time not 

performing any secondary task (the 

Familiarization Trial), and five more 

times performing the secondary task 

being studied (the Data Trials). 

DS–BM.7 Reference Task. During 

each Data Trial, in addition to the 

secondary tasks that are being 

evaluated, a test participant should 

perform one additional secondary task, 

Manual Radio Tuning. This Manual 

Radio Tuning task serves as a reference 

task that is used to determine whether 

the acceptance criteria listed in 

Subsection DS–BM.9, below, are met. 

DS–BM.7.a The Manual Radio 

Tuning task should be performed as 

follows: 

DS–BM.7.a.i Prior to the 

commencement of the Manual Radio 

Tuning task, a test participant is told the 

frequency of the station to which the 

radio is to be tuned. 

DS–BM.7.a.ii Initially the radio is 

‘‘On.’’ If the radio controls are part of an 

integrated vehicle display, the 

integrated display should be set so that 

the radio controls are not active. 

DS–BM.7.a.iii If the radio controls 

are part of an integrated vehicle display, 

a test participant performs the action(s) 

necessary to make the radio controls 

active. 

DS–BM.7.a.iv A test participant 

changes the radio band selection from 

AM to FM (or vice versa). The station 

that the radio is tuned to immediately 

after this band selection is made should 

be referred to as the Initial Station. 

DS–BM.7.a.v A test participant uses 

the radio tuning control to tune the 

radio to the desired, new, station 

(referred to as the Final Station) that is 

approximately one-third of the AM or 

FM (as appropriate) band away from the 

Initial Station. 

DS–BM.7.a.vi The Manual Radio 

Tuning has been completed when the 

radio has been successfully tuned to the 

Final Station. 

DS–BM.8 Metric Computation. 

Metric values should be determined 

based on data recorded by the driving 

simulator from the start of a secondary 

task to the end of a secondary task. 

DS–BM.8.a Based on the recorded 

lane position data, determine how many 

lane exceedances occurred during each 

secondary task. A lane exceedance 

occurs whenever either: 

DS–BM.8.a.i The right front or right 

rear tire of the vehicle is totally to the 

right of the right lane edge line, or 

DS–BM.8.a.ii The left front or left 

rear tire of the vehicle is totally to the 

left of the left lane edge line. 

DS–BM.8.a.iii No distinction is 

made between right and left side lane 

exceedances. Similarly, no distinction is 

made as to whether only the front tire, 

only the rear tire, or both tires have 

crossed the lane edge line. 

DS–BM.8.b Based on the recorded 

data for headway (distance from the 

subject vehicle to a lead vehicle), the 

time headway (headway divided by the 

nominal travel speed of 50 mph) is 

calculated as a function of time. The 

standard deviation of time headway 

during the secondary task is calculated. 

DS–BM.9 Acceptance Criteria. A 

task should not be allowed to be 

performed by drivers unless either (1) 

The vehicle’s engine is not running, or 

(2) the vehicle’s transmission is in 

‘‘Park’’ (automatic transmission 

vehicles) or the vehicle’s transmission is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11244 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

in ‘‘Neutral’’ and the parking brake is on 

(manual transmission vehicles), or (3) 

both of the following criteria are met: 

DS–BM.9.a The number of lane 

exceedances occurring while the 

secondary task is being performed is not 

statistically significantly greater, at the 

95 percent confidence level, than the 

number of lane exceedances occurring 

while the manual radio tuning task is 

being performed. 

DS–BM.9.b The standard deviation 

of headway while the secondary task is 

being performed is not statistically 

significantly greater, at the 95 percent 

confidence level, than the standard 

deviation of headway while the manual 

radio tuning is being performed. 

DS–BM.9.c Data from all five Data 

Trials is used when making the 

statistical significance calculations 

required by DS–BM.9.a and DS–BM.9.b. 

Option DS–FC: Driving Test Protocol 

With Fixed Acceptance Criteria 

DS–FC.1 Test Apparatus. Testing 

should be performed using a driving 

simulator that meets the 

recommendations contained in 

Subsection VI.2 using the driving 

scenario described in Subsection VI.3. 

DS–FC.2 Lead Vehicle Speed. For 

this testing, the lead vehicle should 

travel at a constant speed of 50 mph. 

DS–FC.3 Test Device. The device 

under investigation should be 

operational and fitted to a vehicle or 

simulator buck. 

DS–FC.4 Test Participants. 

DS–FC.4.a Twenty-four test 

participants should be enrolled using 

the procedures described in Subsection 

VI.4. 

DS–FC.4.b Test participants initially 

should be unfamiliar with the device 

being tested. As part of the test protocol, 

they should be trained in the use of the 

device(s) that are being tested using the 

procedures described in Subsection 

VI.5. 

DS–FC.5 Test Instructions. Test 

instruction should be standardized and 

be presented either in oral or written 

format. The display and controls of the 

interface should be visible during 

instruction. An instruction may be 

repeated at the request of a test 

participant. 

DS–FC.6 Number of Trials. Each test 

participant should drive the driving 

scenario six (6) times, one time not 

performing any secondary task (the 

Familiarization Trial), and five more 

times performing the secondary task 

being studied (the Data Trials). 

DS–FC.7 Metric Computation. 

Metric values should be determined 

based on data recorded by the driving 

simulator from the start of a secondary 

task to the end of a secondary task. 

DS–FC.7.a Based on the recorded 

lane position data, determine how many 

lane exceedances occurred during each 

secondary task. A lane exceedance 

occurs whenever either: 

DS–FC.7.a.i The right front or right 

rear tire of the vehicle is totally to the 

right of the right lane edge line, or 

DS–FC.7.a.ii The left front or left 

rear tire of the vehicle is totally to the 

left of the left lane edge line. 

DS–FC.7.a.iii No distinction is made 

between right and left side lane 

exceedances. Similarly, no distinction is 

made as to whether only the front tire, 

only the rear tire, or both tires have 

crossed the lane edge line. 

DS–FC.7.b Based on the recorded 

data for headway (distance from the 

subject vehicle to a lead vehicle), the 

time headway (headway divided by the 

nominal travel speed of 50 mph) is 

calculated as a function of time. The 

standard deviation of time headway 

during the secondary task is calculated. 

DS–FC.8 Acceptance Criteria. A task 

should not be allowed to be performed 

by drivers unless either (1) The vehicle’s 

engine is not running, or (2) the 

vehicle’s transmission is in ‘‘Park’’ 

(automatic transmission vehicles) or the 

vehicle’s transmission is in ‘‘Neutral’’ 

and the parking brake is on (manual 

transmission vehicles), or (3) both of the 

following criteria are met: 

DS–FC.8.a The number of lane 

exceedances occurring while the 

secondary task is being performed is not 

statistically significantly greater, at the 

95 percent confidence level, than 0.06 

lane exceedances per secondary task 

performed. 

DS–FC.8.b The standard deviation of 

headway while the secondary task is 

being performed is not statistically 

significantly greater, at the 95 percent 

confidence level, than 0.35 seconds 

while a secondary task is being 

performed. 

DS–FC.8.c Data from all five Data 

Trials is used when making the 

statistical significance calculations 

required by DS–FC.8.a and DS–FC.8.b. 

Option DFD–BM: Dynamic Following 

and Detection Protocol With Benchmark 

DFD–BM.1 Test Apparatus. Testing 

should be performed using a driving 

simulator that meets the 

recommendations contained in 

Subsection VI.2 using the driving 

scenario described in Subsection VI.3. 

DFD–BM.1.a For this testing, the 

vehicle being tested should contain a 

route navigation system. If the vehicle 

does not have an integrated route 

navigation system, a portable one may 

be used. 

DFD–BM.2 Lead Vehicle Speed. For 

this testing, the lead vehicle should 

travel at a continually varying speed 

that is determined by linear 

interpolation from a table of lead 

vehicle speed values versus time. 

Multiple lead vehicle speed tables are 

used, with a different one being used 

each time a test participant drives the 

simulator. Electronic copies of these 

tables, in the form of Microsoft Excel 

files, can be obtained from NHTSA. 

DFD–BM.3 Test Device. The device 

under investigation should be 

operational and fitted to a vehicle or 

simulator buck. 

DFD–BM.4 Test Participants. 

DFD–BM.4.a Twenty-four test 

participants should be enrolled using 

the procedures described in Subsection 

VI.4. 

DFD–BM.4.b Test participants 

initially should be unfamiliar with the 

device being tested. As part of the test 

protocol, they should be trained in the 

use of the device(s) that are being tested 

using the procedures described in 

Subsection VI.5. 

DFD–BM.5 Test Instructions. Test 

instruction should be standardized and 

be presented either in oral or written 

format. The display and controls of the 

interface should be visible during 

instruction. An instruction may be 

repeated at the request of a test 

participant. 

DFD–BM.6 Number of Trials. Each 

test participant should drive the driving 

scenario two times, one time not 

performing any secondary task (the 

Familiarization Trial), and a second 

time performing the secondary task 

being studied (the Data Trial). 

DFD–BM.7 Eye Glance 

Determination. Eye glances are 

determined for each test participant 

while performing each secondary task 

using the techniques described in 

Subsection VI.6. 

DFD–BM.8 Reference Task. During 

each Data Trial, in addition to the 

secondary tasks that are being 

evaluated, a test participant should 

perform one additional secondary task, 

route navigation system destination 

entry. This Destination Entry task serves 

as a reference task that is used to 

determine whether the acceptance 

criteria listed in Subsection DFD– 

BM.12, below, are met. 

DFD–BM.8.a The Destination Entry 

task should be performed as follows: 

DFD–BM.8.a.i Initially the route 

navigation system is ‘‘On.’’ If the route 

navigation system controls are part of an 

integrated vehicle display, the 

integrated display should be set so that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11245 

the route navigation system controls are 

active. 

DFD–BM.8.a.ii A test participant 

enters a complete address (house 

number, street name, city name, and 

state abbreviation) into the route 

navigation system. Choosing from an 

entry in a list of either previously 

entered destinations or landmarks is not 

acceptable. 

DFD–BM.8.a.iii The Destination 

Entry task has been completed when the 

final button on the route navigation 

system is pressed to have the system 

find the route to the address. 

DFD–BM.8.b Addresses chosen for 

testing should have a three or four digit 

house number, and a nine through 

twelve character street name (see details 

in DFD–BM.8.c), have a seven through 

ten character city name (see details in 

DFD–BM.8.d), and have a two character 

state abbreviation. 

DFD–BM.8.c The nine through 

twelve character street name should 

always be two words with a space 

between them. The first word will be 

the actual name, while the second word 

will be an abbreviation for the type of 

street (Blvd, Ct, Rd, St, etc.). When 

determining the number of characters in 

the street name, all characters of both 

the actual name and the abbreviation as 

well as one character for the space in 

between are counted. 

DFD–BM.8.c.i The route navigation 

system may use an auto-complete 

feature after a portion of the street name 

has been entered. Having a test 

participant choose from a list generated 

by an auto-complete feature is 

acceptable. 

DFD–BM.8.d The seven through ten 

character city name should always be 

one word. 

DFD–BM.8.d.i The route navigation 

system may use an auto-complete 

feature after a portion of the city name 

has been entered. Having a test 

participant choose from a list generated 

by an auto-complete feature is 

acceptable. The auto-complete feature 

may make it unnecessary for a test 

participant to enter the two character 

state abbreviation. 

DFD–BM.8.e The route navigation 

system may have a test participant enter 

a five-digit ZIP code instead of the city 

name and state abbreviation. 

DFD–BM.9 Continuous Task 

Performance. Each secondary task is 

continuously performed for 3 minutes 

during the car following portion of the 

test (see Subsection VI.3.b.iv). 

DFD–BM.10 Visual Detection Task. 

During the car following portion of the 

test, simultaneously with performing 

each secondary task, a test participant 

also continuously performs the visual 

detection task that is described below. 

DFD–BM.10.a As explained in 

Subsections VI.2.f and VI.2.g, for the 

visual detection task, the driving 

simulator should display a series of 

targets to be detected. Each target 

consists of a filled-in, solid, red circle 

that is displayed in any one of six 

positions. Target dimensions and 

positions are described in VI.2.f. When 

a test participant sees a target appear, he 

or she should respond as quickly as 

possible by pressing the micro-switch 

typically attached to their left index 

finger. 

DFD–BM.10.b Outputs from the 

visual detection task consist of: 

DFD–BM.10.b.i The number of 

visual targets displayed during the car 

following portion of the test. 

DFD–BM.10.b.ii The number of 

correctly identified visual targets during 

the car following portion of the test (see 

Subsection VI.2.g.iii for details on how 

to determine). 

DFD–BM.10.b.iii The Visual 

Detection Task Response Time, defined 

as the time when the test participant 

pressed the micro-switch minus the 

time when each visual target begins to 

display on the projection screen, is 

calculated for each time that a test 

participant’s response was correct (see 

Subsection VI.2.g.iv for details on how 

to determine). 

DFD–BM.11 Metric Computation. 

Glance-by-glance Eyes-Off-Road Times, 

Standard Deviation of Lane Position, 

Car Following Delay, Percent Correctly 

Detected, and Visual Detection Task 

Response Time metrics should be 

determined based on data recorded by 

the driving simulator from the start of 

the 3 minutes of secondary task 

performance to the end of the 3 minutes 

(the Data Interval). The following 

measures of test participant 

performance are determined for each 

Data Interval: 

DFD–BM.11.a Glance-by-glance 

Eyes-Off-Road Times. The lengths of eye 

glances away from the forward road 

scene are determined for each test 

participant for each Data Interval using 

the techniques described in Subsection 

VI.6. 

DFD–BM.11.b Standard Deviation of 

Lane Position. Based on the recorded 

data for lane position, the Standard 

Deviation of Lane Position during the 

Data Interval is determined. 

DFD–BM.11.c Car Following Delay. 

The Car Following Delay for each Data 

Interval is calculated as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11246 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

DFD–BM.11.d Percent Correctly 

Detected. For each Data Interval, the 

Percent Correctly Detected is equal to 

the percentage obtained by dividing the 

number of a test participant’s correct 

responses by the total number of targets 

displayed during a trial. 

DFD–BM.11.e Visual Detection Task 

Response Time. As explained in 

Subsection VI.2.g.iii, the Visual 

Detection Task Response Time is 

calculated for each target that is 

displayed during a Data Interval for 

which a test participant gave a correct 

response. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2EN24FE12.060</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11247 

DFD–BM.12 Acceptance Criteria. A 

task should not be allowed to be 

performed by drivers unless either (1) 

The vehicle’s engine is not running, or 

(2) the vehicle’s transmission is in 

‘‘Park’’ (automatic transmission 

vehicles) or the vehicle’s transmission is 

in ‘‘Neutral’’ and the parking brake is on 

(manual transmission vehicles), or (3) 

both of the recommendations DFD– 

BM.12.a and DFD–BM.12.b are met: 

DFD–BM.12.a A secondary task 

meets the recommendations of DFD– 

BM.12.a if it satisfies all three of the 

following criteria: 

DFD–BM.12.a.i For at least 21 of the 

24 test participants, no more than 15 

percent (rounded up) of the total 

number of eye glances away from the 

forward road scene should have 

durations of greater than 2.0 seconds 

while performing the secondary task. 

DFD–BM.12.a.ii For at least 21 of the 

24 test participants, the mean of all eye 

glances away from the forward road 

scene should be less than 2.0 seconds 

while performing the secondary task. 

DFD–BM.12.a.iii For at least 21 of 

the 24 test participants, the sum of the 

durations of each individual 

participant’s eye glances away from the 

forward road scene should be less than, 

or equal to, 12.0 seconds while 

performing the secondary task one time. 

DFD–BM.12.b A secondary task 

meets the recommendations of DFD– 

BM.12.b if it satisfies at least three of the 

following four criteria: 

DFD–BM.12.b.i The Standard 

Deviation of Lane Position during the 

Data Intervals is statistically 

significantly less, at the 95 percent 

confidence level, than the Standard 

Deviation of Lane Position during the 

Data Intervals for the Destination Entry 

task. 

DFD–BM.12.b.ii The Car Following 

Delay during the Data Intervals is 

statistically significantly less, at the 95 

percent confidence level, than the Car 

Following Delay during the Data 

Intervals for the Destination Entry task. 

DFD–BM.12.b.iii The Percent 

Correctly Detected during the Data 

Intervals is statistically significantly 

greater, at the 95 percent confidence 

level, than the Percent Correctly 

Detected during the Data Intervals for 

the Destination Entry task. 

DFD–BM.12.b.iv The Visual 

Detection Task Response Time during 

the Data Intervals is statistically 

significantly less, at the 95 percent 

confidence level, than the Visual 

Detection Task Response Time during 

the Data Intervals for the Destination 

Entry task. 

DFD–BM.13 Testing Procedure 

Items. 

DFD–BM.13.a To prevent familiarity 

with the lead vehicle’s speed profile 

from becoming an issue, a different 

speed profile should be used for each 

test participant drive on the driving 

simulator. 

DFD–BM.13.b It is acceptable for 

each test participant to perform multiple 

secondary tasks in a single test 

participation session. However, a test 

participant should not be tested 

performing more than six secondary 

tasks in a single session. 

DFD–BM.13.c Each test participant 

should only be tested for one 3-minute 

interval while performing the same 

secondary task. 

DFD–BM.14 Multiple Trials. To 

improve testing efficiency, multiple 

Data Trials should be allowed to be 

made by the same subject. Only one 

Familiarization Trial needs to be 

performed, prior to any desired number 

of Data Trials. Also, multiple secondary 

tasks can be tested, one after another, 

during the same Data Trial. 

Option DFD–FC: Dynamic Following 

and Detection Protocol With Fixed 

Acceptance Criteria 

DFD–FC.1 Test Apparatus. Testing 

should be performed using a driving 

simulator that meets the 

recommendations contained in 

Subsection VI.2 using the driving 

scenario described in Subsection VI.3. 

DFD–FC.1.a For this testing, the 

vehicle being tested should contain a 

route navigation system. If the vehicle 

does not have an integrated route 

navigation system, a portable one may 

be used. 

DFD–FC.2 Lead Vehicle Speed. For 

this testing, the lead vehicle should 

travel at a continually varying speed 

that is determined by linear 

interpolation from a table of lead 

vehicle speed values versus time. 

Multiple lead vehicle speed tables are 

used, with a different one being used 

each time a test participant drives the 

simulator. Electronic copies of these 

tables, in the form of Microsoft Excel 

files, can be obtained from NHTSA. 

DFD–FC.3 Test Device. The device 

under investigation should be 

operational and fitted to a vehicle or 

simulator buck. 

DFD–FC.4 Test Participants. 

DFD–FC.4.a Twenty-four test 

participants should be enrolled using 

the procedures described in Subsection 

VI.4. 

DFD–FC.4.b Test participants 

initially should be unfamiliar with the 

device being tested. As part of the test 

protocol, they should be trained in the 

use of the device(s) that are being tested 

using the procedures described in 

Subsection VI.5. 

DFD–FC.5 Test Instructions. Test 

instruction should be standardized and 

be presented either in oral or written 

format. The display and controls of the 

interface should be visible during 

instruction. An instruction may be 

repeated at the request of a test 

participant. 

DFD–FC.6 Number of Trials. Each 

test participant should drive the driving 

scenario two times, one time not 

performing any secondary task (the 

Familiarization Trial), and a second 

time performing the secondary task 

being studied (the Data Trial). 

DFD–FC.7 Eye Glance 

Determination. Eye glances are 

determined for each test participant 

while performing each secondary task 

using the techniques described in 

Subsection VI.6. 

DFD–FC.8 Continuous Task 

Performance. Each secondary task is 

continuously performed for 3 minutes 

during the car following portion of the 

test (see Subsection VI.3.b.iv). 

DFD–FC.9 Visual Detection Task. 

During the car following portion of the 

test, simultaneously with performing 

each secondary task, a test participant 

also continuously performs the visual 

detection task that is described below. 

DFD–FC.9.a As explained in 

Subsections VI.2.f and VI.2.g, for the 

visual detection task, the driving 

simulator should display a series of 

targets to be detected. Each target 

consists of a filled-in, solid, red circle 

that is displayed in any one of six 

positions. Target dimensions and 

positions are described in VI.2.f. When 

a test participant sees a target appear, he 

or she should respond as quickly as 

possible by pressing the micro-switch 

typically attached to their left index 

finger. 

DFD–FC.9.b Outputs from the visual 

detection task consist of: 

DFD–FC.9.b.i The number of visual 

targets displayed during the car 

following portion of the test. 

DFD–FC.9.b.ii The number of 

correctly identified visual targets during 

the car following portion of the test (see 

Subsection VI.2.g.iii for details on how 

to determine). 

DFD–FC.9.b.iii The Visual Detection 

Task Response Time, defined as the 

time when the test participant pressed 

the micro-switch minus the time when 

each target begins to display on the 

projection screen, is calculated for each 

time that a test participant’s response 

was correct (see Subsection VI.2.g.iv for 

details on how to determine). 

DFD–FC.10 Metric Computation. 

Glance-by-glance Eyes-Off-Road Times, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

11248 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

Standard Deviation of Lane Position, 

Car Following Delay, Percent Correctly 

Detected, and Visual Detection Task 

Response Time metrics should be 

determined based on data recorded by 

the driving simulator from the start of 

the 3 minutes of secondary task 

performance to the end of the 3 minutes 

(the Data Interval). The following 

measures of test participant 

performance are determined for each 

Data Interval: 

DFD–FC.10.a Glance-by-glance EyesOff-Road Times. The lengths of eye 

glances away from the forward road 

scene are determined for each test 

participant for each Data Interval using 

the techniques described in Subsection 

VI.6. 

DFD–FC.10.b Standard Deviation of 

Lane Position. Based on the recorded 

data for lane position, the Standard 

Deviation of Lane Position during the 

Data Interval is determined. 

DFD–FC.10.c Car Following Delay. 

The Car Following Delay for each Data 

Interval is calculated as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11249 

DFD–FC.10.d Percent Correctly 

Detected. For each Data Interval, the 

Percent Correctly Detected is equal to 

the percentage obtained by dividing the 

number of a test participant’s correct 

responses by the total number of targets 

displayed on the screen during the trial. 

DFD–FC.10.e Visual Detection Task 

Response Time. As explained in 

Subsection VI.2.g.iii, the Visual 

Detection Task Response Time is 

calculated for each target that is 

displayed during a Data Interval for 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2EN24FE12.061</GPH>
11250 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

which a test participant gave a correct 

response. 

DFD–FC.11 Acceptance Criteria. A 

task should not be allowed to be 

performed by drivers unless either (1) 

The vehicle’s engine is not running, or 

(2) the vehicle’s transmission is in 

‘‘Park’’ (automatic transmission 

vehicles) or the vehicle’s transmission is 

in ‘‘Neutral’’ and the parking brake is on 

(manual transmission vehicles), or (3) 

both of the recommendations DFD– 

FC.11.a and DFD–FC.11.b are met: 

DFD–FC.11.a A secondary task 

meets the recommendations of DFD– 

FC.11.a if it satisfies all three of the 

following criteria: 

DFD–FC.11.a.i For at least 21 of the 

24 test participants, no more than 15 

percent (rounded up) of the total 

number of eye glances away from the 

forward road scene should have 

durations of greater than 2.0 seconds 

while performing the secondary task. 

DFD–FC.11.a.ii For at least 21 of the 

24 test participants, the mean of all eye 

glances away from the forward road 

scene should be less than 2.0 seconds 

while performing the secondary task. 

DFD–FC.11.a.iii For at least 21 of the 

24 test participants, the sum of the 

durations of each individual 

participant’s eye glances away from the 

forward road scene should be less than, 

or equal to, 12.0 seconds while 

performing the secondary task one time. 

DFD–FC.11.b A secondary task 

meets the recommendations of DFD– 

FC.11.b if it satisfies at least three of the 

following four criteria: 

DFD–FC.11.b.i The Standard 

Deviation of Lane Position during the 

Data Intervals is not statistically 

significantly greater, at the 95 percent 

confidence level, than 1.0 feet. 

DFD–FC.11.b.ii The mean Car 

Following Delay during the Data 

Intervals is not statistically significantly 

greater, at the 95 percent confidence 

level, than 4.6 seconds. 

DFD–FC.11.b.iii The mean Percent 

Detected during the Data Intervals is 

statistically significantly greater, at the 

95 percent confidence level, than 80 

percent. 

J11.b.iv The mean Visual Detection 

Task Response Time during the Data 

Intervals is not statistically significantly 

greater, at the 95 percent confidence 

level, than 1.0 second. 

DFD–FC.12 Testing Procedure Items. 

DFD–FC.12.a To prevent familiarity 

with the lead vehicle’s speed profile 

from becoming an issue, a different 

speed profile should be used for each 

test participant drive on the driving 

simulator. 

DFD–FC.12.b It is acceptable for 

each test participant to perform multiple 

secondary tasks in a single test 

participation session. However, a test 

participant should not be tested 

performing more than six secondary 

tasks in a single session. 

DFD–FC.12.c Each test participant 

should only be tested for one 3-minute 

interval while performing the same 

secondary task. 

DFD–FC.13 Multiple Trials. To 

improve testing efficiency, multiple 

Data Trials should be allowed to be 

made by the same subject. Only one 

Familiarization Trial needs to be 

performed, prior to any desired number 

of Data Trials. Also, multiple secondary 

tasks can be tested, one after another, 

during the same Data Trial. 

VII. Recommendations for Passenger 

Operated Devices. These guidelines 

primarily are appropriate for driver 

interfaces of devices intended for use by 

a driver. They are appropriate to a 

limited extent for devices intended for 

use by front seat passengers. 

VII.1 Apply if Within Reach or View 

of Driver. 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. 

VII.2 Not for Rear Seat Devices. 

These guidelines are not appropriate for 

devices that are located solely behind 

the front seat of the vehicle. 

VIII. Recommendations for 

Aftermarket and Portable Devices. 

VIII.1 Aftermarket and Portable 

Device Guidelines in Future. NHTSA 

intends, in the future, to extend its 

NHTSA Guidelines to cover aftermarket 

and portable devices. At that time, 

NHTSA may revise the metrics 

contained in the current guidelines or 

introduce new metrics. 

VIII.2 Unreasonable Risks With 

Aftermarket and Portable Devices. 

NHTSA reminds manufacturers that 

they are responsible for ensuring that 

aftermarket and portable devices they 

produce which may reasonably be 

expected to be used by vehicle drivers 

do not create unreasonable risks to the 

driving public. 

IX. Recommendations for Voice 

Interfaces. 

IX.1 Auditory-Vocal Interface 

Guidelines (Future). NHTSA intends, in 

the future, to extend its NHTSA 

Guidelines to cover the auditory-vocal 

aspects of device interfaces. For now, 

only devices with tasks performed 

through visual-manual interfaces and/or 

a combination of visual-manual and 

auditory-vocal means are covered by the 

recommendations that are contained in 

these guidelines. 

IX.2 Unreasonable Risks with 

Auditory-Vocal Interfaces. NHTSA 

reminds manufacturers that they are 

responsible for ensuring that devices 

they produce which have auditory-vocal 

portions of their interfaces do not create 

unreasonable risks to the driving public. 

Issued on: February 15, 2012. 

David L. Strickland, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4017 Filed 2–16–12; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES2