[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 42 (Monday, March 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11459-11462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4004]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0038]
Notice and Request for Information and Comment on Development and
Application of Crash Warning Interface Metrics
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for information and comment on development
and application of crash warning interface metrics.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: During the NHTSA-led Human Factors Forum on Advanced Vehicle
Safety Technologies in early 2007, participants from the automobile
industry, government, and academia gathered to discuss the research
necessary to ensure that future design and operation of these
technologies are developed with an understanding of the driver's
ability to use them. Underlying this objective is a requirement to have
techniques and metrics to quantify how well drivers can use and benefit
from the technologies. Without common, reliable, and safety-related
metrics, it is difficult to develop, evaluate, and compare different
systems as well as to determine the impact of non-standardized warning
interfaces.
To address this issue, NHTSA is initiating a program to develop a
set of standard metrics and test procedures to assess the Driver-
Vehicle Interface (DVI) of Advanced Crash Warning Systems (ACWS). ACWS
are technologies to assist drivers who may be unaware of impending
collisions by alerting them of potential threats. Examples include
forward collision warnings, lane departure warnings, and road departure
warnings. The DVI is the means by which ACWS communicate with drivers
to help them avoid a threat. In order for ACWS to achieve their
intended safety benefits, drivers need to be able to quickly understand
the ACWS threat information and respond appropriately without
confusion. The warning timing, reliability, warning modes, device
controls, and displays are examples of the DVI characteristics that can
affect the ability of drivers to achieve the intended safety benefits
without possible adverse consequences. Crash Warning Interface Metrics
(CWIM) are derived from tests of drivers' performance using ACWS,
indicating the compatibility of the DVI with drivers' capabilities and
needs.
This notice invites comments, suggestions, and recommendations from
all individuals and organizations that have an interest in the
development and use of Crash Warning Interface Metrics. NHTSA requests
comments to assist the agency in identifying, evaluating, and selecting
CWIM and associated test methods for assessing the role of the DVI in
influencing driver performance with ACWS.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than April 17, 2008. Late
comments may be considered.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2007-0038 by any of the following methods:
[[Page 11460]]
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://wwww.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading in 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).
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Traube, Office of Human Vehicle
Performance Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone number:
202-366-5673; E-mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: One recent development in vehicle safety
technology has been the introduction of Advanced Crash Warning Systems
(ACWS). These systems alert drivers about emerging hazardous situations
using auditory, visual, or haptic warnings. In some cases, limited
vehicle control action, such as braking or steering, are initiated to
alert drivers to respond. Systems that do not warn or provide some type
of feedback to the driver would not be considered ACWS. Examples of
ACWS include (but are not limited to) road departure warnings, lane
change (blind spot) warnings, adaptive cruise control, curve speed
warnings, and forward collision warnings.
While the implementation of ACWS in production vehicles appears to
be increasing, the question remains as to whether ACWS will produce
significant safety improvements or will introduce unforeseen problems,
particularly if drivers are unfamiliar with ACWS warnings. The NHTSA-
sponsored Human Factors Forum on Advanced Vehicle Safety Technologies
was held in 2007 to begin to address this issue.
A key to ACWS effectiveness is the quality of its interface, which
can affect the driver's performance as well as acceptance of the
technology. The interface of an ACWS consists of the controls that
drivers use to adjust the system operation and any visual, auditory, or
haptic warnings as well as operational cues that can influence driver
actions. Whether drivers will be able to effectively utilize this
feedback to avoid crashes may be determined through tests that measure
various aspects of driver/vehicle response, such as brake reaction
time, gas pedal release time, brake force, threat recognition, response
appropriateness, eye glance behaviors, etc. Because different
manufacturers employ different test protocols, measures, and criteria
to determine the design of the Driver-Vehicle Interface (DVI), a
variety of interfaces have been proposed and in some cases deployed in
production vehicles.
The Forum's focus on driver centered design highlighted the
importance of these issues. Attendees stressed that future research
should determine how to assess if drivers understand the system, if the
system leads to appropriate driver reactions, and if drivers accept the
new systems. Other discussion focused on the unintended consequences--
understanding how inadequate mental models may affect safety and how
design can strengthen those models. In addition, discussion addressed
research needs related to integration of interfaces when several
warning systems are installed. Other topics included the question of
designing interfaces compatible with the capabilities of the majority
of the driving population and compatible with each other. The later is
where the topic of interface standardization was addressed as an
approach to minimize driver confusion.
Without a meaningful basis for evaluating the driver/vehicle
interface, the research topics suggested at the Forum would be
difficult to resolve. In order to better evaluate and compare different
ACWS interfaces, NHTSA has initiated a major research effort to develop
human factors test protocols and related metrics of driver/system
performance that will form the basis for a set of crash warning
interface metrics (CWIM). The development of CWIM will benefit public
safety by helping to identify effective ACWS. Secondly, CWIM will help
to assess the whether lack of standardization of ACWS interface
characteristics could confuse drivers and compromise system
effectiveness. The issues of standardization and CWIM are interrelated
because without metrics, the effects of non-standardized DVIs on driver
performance cannot be objectively assessed. In addition, NHTSA may use
results from the CWIM project to enhance test procedures developed
under the Advanced Crash Avoidance Technology program and other ongoing
activities.
NHTSA requests comments to assist the agency in identifying,
evaluating, and selecting CWIM and associated test methods for
assessing the role of the DVI in influencing driver performance with
ACWS. The agency is interested in comments related to both the
scientific merit of different metrics as well as the practical or
institutional considerations for end users of CWIM.
While the research effort is making use of published research,
guidelines, standards, and other materials, it will benefit greatly
from the experience and opinion of various stakeholder groups, who face
related issues. Therefore, we hope to receive comments that will
reflect lessons learned, new ideas and approaches, criteria for optimal
methods, practical concerns in application, and other information
unlikely to be reflected in published literature. Responses to this
notice may also help to provide greater consistency with current
practice and assure maximum usefulness.
The following are some of the key issues that the agency would like
commenters to address. In addition to general comments, the agency
requests submission of documents, studies, test protocols, or
references relevant to the issues.
A. Potential Measures and Procedures
(A1) What techniques, metrics, and criteria are now being used by
vehicle manufacturers for developing and evaluating the human factor
aspects of interface design and operation of ACWS at various stages of
product development? What tools and environments (e.g. simulators, test
[[Page 11461]]
tracks, etc.) are used to evaluate DVIs? Are there ``lessons learned''
regarding their use, practicality, or acceptance? What measures and
procedures are the most predictive of relevant safety parameters?
(A2) To what extent are DVI assessment techniques shared industry-
wide and to what extent are these methods proprietary? What performance
requirements, standards or guidance documents have been used by vehicle
manufacturers and/or system suppliers to address the human factors
aspects of the design and evaluation of CWIM for ACWS? Are they
helpful? What are their limitations?
(A3) If various functions (e.g., Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC),
Frontal Crash Warning (FCW), Lane Departure Warning (LDW)) are packaged
together as an integrated in-vehicle system, can CWIM be applied
individually to each function or is there a need to treat each function
in the context of the other functions present as well as other aspects
of vehicle design? How can or should this be done? Are there common
metrics and protocols that can be used to assess several ACWS?
B. Evaluation of CWIM
(B1) What criteria should be used to determine the most sensitive,
reliable, relevant, and useful metrics?
(B2) If consumers are annoyed or otherwise dislike the system, they
may turn it off or not purchase it. How should consumer acceptance or
driver annoyance be evaluated with respect to their influence on system
effectiveness?
(B3) Driver response to ACWS can vary from person to person. Even
the same person can vary in performance depending on their state of
mind, e.g., drowsy or distracted. What subsets of the population need
to be included in developing criteria for CWIM? How should their needs
and capabilities be integrated into the assessment?
(B4) What type of evaluation of the DVI is being done or should be
done to follow up on driver performance with production systems and its
implication for the validity of CWIM?
C. Applying CWIM
(C1) CWIM may be used by suppliers, vehicle manufacturers, and the
Government to design, evaluate, and compare usability and potential
safety implications of ACWS. However, protocols that are too
complicated or costly may be difficult to implement. Protocols that are
perceived as invalid or not sensitive to different characteristics of
interface design may not be used. What are the practical considerations
that need to be factored into the development of metrics and related
test protocols to make them useful and also acceptable to those who
must apply the methods? What factors should be considered in the choice
of test equipment (e.g., simulators, test tracks, vehicle
instrumentation) needed to collect driver data?
(C2) As the number of ACWS increases in the vehicle fleet, the lack
of standardization of the DVI among different vehicle makes and models
may increase the likelihood of driver confusion in responding to the
warning information intended to assist the driver. This lack of
standardized design and operation of ACWS may reduce the safety
benefits of these technologies. What mechanism (e.g., voluntary
standards promulgated by SAE, ISO, or NHTSA or mandatory standards set
forth in the FMVSS, etc.) should be used to standardize CWIM? How can
standardization be balanced against restricting innovation? What test
procedures and metrics can be applied to objectively evaluate the need
for standardization? What criteria should be used to judge the need for
standardization?
(C3) How should the criteria for acceptability be determined; that
is, what determines if a DVI is ``good enough''? Also, how should the
metrics be calibrated to determine if differences between measured
values are of practical significance?
D. Research Needs
(D1) What research or other steps are required to identify CWIM and
establish their validity as a basis for assessment?
(D2) What is the best way to encourage and coordinate international
harmonized research on CWIM?
Public Participation
A. How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR
553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary
comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES.
Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
B. How can I be sure 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.
C. How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission,
including the information you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information to Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES, or submit them electronically
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
D. Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
E. How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the comments received by the Docket Management at the
address given under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated
above in the same location. To read the comments on the Internet, go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information on 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.
[[Page 11462]]
Issued on February 26, 2008.
Joseph N. Kanianthra,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. E8-4004 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-69-P