Transportation safety is the
Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) top strategic priority.
Because the human toll and economic cost of transportation
accidents are substantial, improving transportation safety is an
important objective of all DOT modes. Within DOT, NHTSA is
continually focused on reducing crashes, fatalities, and injuries.
According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA), in 2011 approximately 345,000 large trucks and buses were
involved in crashes (fatal, injury, and property-damage-only
combined). When looking at crash type, of the nearly 288,000
crashes involving large trucks, 24 percent were rear- end crashes.
In 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board issued a letter
to NHTSA that reiterated two prior recommendations for the
development of forward collision warning standards for heavy
vehicles. • Recommendation H-01-6: develop standards including
human factors guidelines (e.g., mode and type of warning) and the
timing of alerts • Recommendation H-01-7: once performance
standards have been established, require all new CMVs to be
equipped with a forward collision warning (FCW) system To realize
the potential benefits of FCW systems, these systems must generate
appropriate driver responses to threats in a well-timed manner.
However, FCW or crash warning interfaces (CWIs) must effectively
convey the appropriate warning information to the driver for this
to occur. Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have steadily
been improving FCW systems by adding capabilities such as CMB
(Collision Mitigation Braking), engine braking, and integrated
radar and camera sensors. While solving some of the deficiencies of
early-generation systems (e.g., high false alarm rate, stationary
object detection), these advancements have also produced new
challenges, possibly bypassing some of the more basic concerns
related to CWIs. Current FCW systems are available as OEM options
and aftermarket retrofit kits. However, differences between OEM
options and retrofit kits – and even more so between the different
FCW system suppliers – represent another set of challenges.
Differences in the timing, loudness, and sound of the auditory
alert, as well as color, location, and size choice of visual
alerts, can vary widely. These differences can present issues at
the driver level in fleets using slip-seat operations or for
drivers who change employers and/or vehicles.
This is a new data information
collection regarding the evaluation of heavy vehicle collision
warning interfaces, resulting in a program change and an increase
to NHTSA’s overall burden hour total by 44 burden hours.
$435,088
No
No
No
No
No
Uncollected
Eric Traube 202 366-5673
eric.traube@dot.gov
No
On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that
the collection of information encompassed by this request complies
with 5 CFR 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 CFR
1320.8(b)(3).
The following is a summary of the topics, regarding
the proposed collection of information, that the certification
covers:
(i) Why the information is being collected;
(ii) Use of information;
(iii) Burden estimate;
(iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a
benefit, or mandatory);
(v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and
(vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control
number;
If you are unable to certify compliance with any of
these provisions, identify the item by leaving the box unchecked
and explain the reason in the Supporting Statement.