
[Federal Register: June 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 107)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 31663-31665]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03jn08-18]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for 
Rulemaking

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking from the Center 
for Auto Safety (CAS) asking that we initiate rulemaking to require 
that any vehicle integrated personal communication systems including 
cellular phones and text messaging systems be inoperative when the 
vehicle is in motion.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Ms. 
Gayle Dalrymple of the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, at 
202-366-5559.
    For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama of the NHTSA 
Office of Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petition for Rulemaking

    The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) submitted a petition for 
rulemaking asking that we ``initiate rulemaking to prohibit the use of 
integrated cellular telephones and other interactive communication and 
data transmission devices that can be used for personal conversations 
and other interactive personal communication or messaging while a 
vehicle is in motion.'' CAS stated that the purpose of the petition was 
to ``make the driving environment safer by reducing the availability of 
devices that have been proven to be traffic hazards.'' CAS specifically 
petitioned NHTSA to undertake the following:
    First, CAS petitioned NHTSA to issue a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, 
and transmission braking effect, by adding a new provision that would 
state:

    Any vehicle integrated personal communication systems including 
cellular phones and text messaging shall be inoperative when the 
transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

    Second, CAS petitioned NHTSA to issue an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPRM) to consider ``subjecting other vehicle integrated 
telematic \1\ systems that significantly

[[Page 31664]]

increase vehicle crash rates to be included in the scope of the above 
proposed amendment to FMVSS No. 102.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ At AskOxford.com, the online edition of the Oxford 
Dictionary of the English language, ``telematics'' is defined as 
``the branch of information technology which deals with the long-
distance transmission of computerized information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, CAS asked that NHTSA increase efforts to support state 
programs to limit cell phone use by drivers in moving vehicles in the 
same manner it supports state programs against drunk driving.
    In its petition, CAS provided background concerning increasing use 
by the automotive industry of in-vehicle technologies with telematic 
options, which it stated results in distracted driving. CAS asserted 
that research shows that operating a motor vehicle while talking on a 
cell phone (hand-held or hands-free) ``increases the risk of an 
accident to three to four times the experience of attentive drivers.''
    CAS cited a number of States that have enacted legislation designed 
to restrict cell phone use as a response to the problem of distracted 
driving caused by cell phones. It stated that the highest of these 
standards prohibits the use of any hand-held cell phone but permits 
drivers to use hands-free wireless devices.
    CAS stated that even if States were to extend the regulations to 
hands-free cell phones, enforcing such regulations would be a problem, 
as it would be virtually impossible for a traffic officer to see a 
driver using a hands-free cell phone. The petitioner stated that the 
solution to stopping hands-free talking and driving in a vehicle with 
an integrated cell phone is ``through a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard prohibiting the use of cell phone communications while the 
vehicle is in motion.''
    CAS provided accounts of motor vehicle crashes resulting in deaths 
in which it asserted cell phone use was a crash causation factor. CAS 
concluded by urging the government ``to intervene on this dangerous 
practice, to ensure basic protection for those who use public roads and 
sidewalks.''
    General Motors and Ford submitted comments opposing the CAS 
petition.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Docket  NHTSA 2007-28442.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis and Decision

    We begin by noting that NHTSA has issued the following policy 
statement concerning cell phone use while driving, which is included on 
the agency's Web site:

    The primary responsibility of the driver is to operate a motor 
vehicle safely. The task of driving requires full attention and 
focus. Cell phone use can distract drivers from this task, risking 
harm to themselves and others. Therefore, the safest course of 
action is to refrain from using a cell phone while driving.

    CAS's petition for rulemaking specifically requests that the agency 
address the issue of driver distraction related to the use of cell 
phones and other telematic devices by requiring such devices, when 
integrated into the vehicle, to be inoperative whenever the vehicle may 
be in motion. After carefully considering the available data and the 
petitioner's request, we have decided to deny the request.
    By way of background, NHTSA and others recognize that driver 
distraction due to use of phones or other devices while driving can 
increase the crash risk.\3\ As such, NHTSA has and will continue to 
address the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ McCartt et al., ``Cell Phones and Driving: Review of the 
Research.'' Traffic Injury Prevention No 7, 89-106, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our initial work on this topic was published in 1997.\4\ In 2000, 
NHTSA sponsored an Internet Forum, a Public Meeting, and Expert Working 
Groups aimed at providing an extensive resource of information on 
research findings, industry initiatives, public comments, and research 
needs on driver distraction.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An Investigation of the Safety Implications of Wireless 
Communications in Vehicles, http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/
research/wireless/.
    \5\ NHTSA Driver Distraction Internet Forum: Summary and 
Proceedings, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-13/
FinalInternetForumReport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the 1997 study and the 2000 meetings provided information that 
helped identify the research goals NHTSA should pursue to help minimize 
the distraction safety problem. Since then, the focus of our research 
has been to:
    1. Understand the magnitude and characteristics of the safety 
problem.
    2. Develop measurement methods to quantify the impacts of device 
designs on driver performance.
    3. Evaluate reducing distraction related crash risk through driver 
assistance technologies, such as collision warning systems.
    We have worked with researchers in universities, private 
organizations, and industry to address these issues. As a result, we 
have gained insights about the risks of multitasking,\6\ developed 
methods to quantify the effect of operating various devices while 
driving,\7\ worked to better understand the importance of device 
interface design on driving performance,\8\ and evaluated several 
countermeasures that can reduce the risk of distraction by warning 
drivers of imminent dangers.\9\ In anticipation of the emergence of 
multiple, potentially distracting technologies, NHTSA has also 
undertaken a research program to evaluate the potential of a system 
that could monitor the level of distraction of drivers, control the 
information flow to the driver, and adjust the parameters on collision 
warning systems to increase their effectiveness.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: 
An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data, 
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/
Crash%20Avoidance/Driver%20Distraction/810594.pdf.
    \7\ Driver Workload Metrics, 2006, http://www.nhtsa.gov/
staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/
Driver%20Distraction/
Driver%20Workload%20Metrics%20Final%20Report.pdf.
    \8\ Examination of the Distraction Effects of Wireless Phone 
Interfaces Using the National Advanced Driving Simulator, 2004, 
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/VRTC/
ca/capubs/Wireless1F_PrelimReport.pdf.
    \9\ Driver distraction, warning algorithm parameters, and driver 
response to imminent rear-end collisions in a high-fidelity driving 
simulator, 2002, http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/
Multimedia/PDFs/Human%20Factors/Driver%20Assistance/
DOT%20HS%20809%20448.pdf.
    \10\ http://www.volpe.dot.gov/hf/roadway/saveit/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional NHTSA research on Intelligent Transportation Systems 
(ITS), such as the Integrated Vehicle Based Safety Systems (IVBSS) 
Initiative, may also lead to countermeasures for driver distraction. 
Significant human factors work is underway in IVBSS to design an 
integrated Driver-Vehicle Interface (DVI) that minimizes distraction 
and provides effective warnings to drivers.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ http://www.its.dot.gov/ivbss/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAS's petition for rulemaking specifically asks us to address the 
problem of driver distraction related to use of cell phones and other 
telematic devices by requiring such devices, when integrated into the 
vehicle, to be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a 
forward or reverse drive position, i.e., whenever the vehicle may be in 
motion.
    Federal motor safety standards are required to ``meet the need for 
motor vehicle safety.'' 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). However, CAS has not 
provided information or analysis showing that the rule it requests 
would result in safety benefits.
    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. Given the number of drivers who currently 
use cell phones, the agency believes this would be the likely result. 
The agency estimates that

[[Page 31665]]

in 2005, six percent of drivers at any given moment were using hand-
held cell phones.\12\ The estimate is from the National Occupant 
Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), which is the only source of probability-
based observed data on cell phone use by drivers in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Driver Cell Phone Use in 2005--Overall Results,'' 
Research Note DOT HS 809 967, National Center for Statistics and 
Analysis, NHTSA, December 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the above reasons, we conclude that there is no reason to 
believe that the rule requested by the petitioner would result in 
safety benefits. Accordingly, we are denying the petition.
    We note that even putting aside the issue of drivers substituting 
portable devices for integrated devices, the information provided by 
CAS would not lead us to grant its petition.
    In the rulemaking advocated by the petitioner, the agency would 
need to consider, among other things, the specific safety impacts 
associated with current integrated systems and reasonably foreseeable 
integrated systems. It would be necessary to consider reasonably 
foreseeable integrated systems given that the requested rule would 
prohibit all systems that can be used while the vehicle is in motion. 
CAS has not provided specific data or analysis along these lines.
    We also note that in the rulemaking advocated by the petitioner, 
the agency would need to consider costs as well as benefits.
    Given the lack of specific data and analysis and also considering 
the resources needed to conduct rulemaking, we would not initiate 
rulemaking in this area based on the information provided by CAS.
    Finally, as noted earlier, CAS asked that NHTSA increase efforts to 
support state programs to limit cell phone use by drivers in moving 
vehicles in the same manner it supports state programs against drunk 
driving. This particular request is not amenable to being addressed by 
rulemaking.
    States have recognized the need to discourage driver distractions 
such as cell phone use and texting and many State legislatures have 
taken action to restrict those practices.
    While various legislative and educational approaches have been 
utilized, little evaluation has been completed and best practices have 
yet to be demonstrated. NHTSA has solicited potential options for a 
demonstration project in this area to begin in Fiscal Year 2008 or 
2009.
    Pursuant to Section 2003(d) of Public Law 109-59 (August 10, 2005), 
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), NHTSA will be conducting multiple 
demonstration programs to evaluate new and innovative means of 
combating traffic system problems caused by distracted, inattentive or 
fatigued drivers.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: May 27, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc.E8-12285 Filed 6-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
