Evaluation of Heavy Vehicle Collision Warning Interfaces

ICR 201705-2127-002

OMB: 2127-0733

Federal Form Document

ICR Details
2127-0733 201705-2127-002
Historical Inactive 201704-2127-005
DOT/NHTSA
Evaluation of Heavy Vehicle Collision Warning Interfaces
New collection (Request for a new OMB Control Number)   No
Regular
Improperly submitted 01/11/2018
Retrieve Notice of Action (NOA) 06/21/2017
DOT will resubmit once the full study/evaluation is accounted for in the burden and described fully in Parts A and B.
  Inventory as of this Action Requested Previously Approved
36 Months From Approved
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0

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.

None
None

Not associated with rulemaking

  80 FR 66610 10/29/2015
81 FR 36380 06/06/2016
No

1
IC Title Form No. Form Name
This is a new data information collection, regarding the evaluation of heavy vehicle collision warning interfaces participants study forms NHTSA Form 1337, NHTSA Form 1338, NHTSA Form 1339, NHTSA Form 1340 Participant Screening ,   Demographics Questionnaire ,   Mid-Study Questionnaire ,   Post Drive Questionnaire

Yes
Miscellaneous Actions
No
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
Yes Part B of Supporting Statement
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.
06/21/2017


© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy