Event Data Recorders, 50998-51048 [06-7094]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 166 (Monday, August 28, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50998-51048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7094]



[[Page 50997]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Part 563



Event Data Recorders; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 50998]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 563

[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25666]
RIN 2127-AI72


Event Data Recorders

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule specifies uniform requirements for the 
accuracy, collection, storage, survivability, and retrievability of 
onboard motor vehicle crash event data in passenger cars and other 
light vehicles equipped with event data recorders (EDRs). This final 
rule responds to the growing practice in the motor vehicle industry of 
voluntarily installing EDRs in an increasing number of light vehicles. 
This final rule is intended to standardize the data obtained through 
EDRs so that such data may be put to the most effective future use and 
to ensure that EDR infrastructure develops in such a way as to speed 
medical assistance through providing a foundation for automatic crash 
notification (ACN). This final regulation: requires that the EDRs 
installed in light vehicles record a minimum set of specified data 
elements; standardizes the format in which those data are recorded; 
helps to ensure the crash survivability of an EDR and its data by 
requiring that the EDR function during and after the front and side 
vehicle crash tests specified in two Federal motor vehicle safety 
standards; and requires vehicle manufacturers to ensure the commercial 
availability of the tools necessary to enable crash investigators to 
retrieve data from the EDR. In addition, to ensure public awareness of 
EDRs, the regulation also requires vehicle manufacturers to include a 
standardized statement in the owner's manual indicating that the 
vehicle is equipped with an EDR and describing the functions and 
capabilities of EDRs.
    This final rule for standardization of EDR data will ensure that 
EDRs record, in a readily usable manner, the data necessary for ACN, 
effective crash investigations, and analysis of safety equipment 
performance. Standardization of EDR data will facilitate development of 
ACN, e-911, and similar systems, which could lead to future safety 
enhancements. In addition, analysis of EDR data can contribute to safer 
vehicle designs and a better understanding of the circumstances and 
causation of crashes and injuries.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective October 27, 2006. The 
incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the 
regulation is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
October 27, 2006.
    Compliance Dates: Except as provided below, light vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 that are equipped with an 
EDR and manufacturers of those vehicles must comply with this rule. 
However, vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages or that 
are altered are not required to comply with the rule until September 1, 
2011.
    Petitions: If you wish to submit a petition for reconsideration of 
this rule, your petition must be received by October 12, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number above and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.
    For technical and policy issues: Ms. Lori Summers, Office of 
Crashworthiness Standards (Telephone: 202-366-1740) (Fax: 202-493-
2739).
    For legal issues: Mr. Eric Stas, Office of the Chief Counsel 
(Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Regulation
    B. Developments Culminating in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    1. Early Agency Efforts on EDRs
    2. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    C. Requirements of the Final Rule
    D. Lead Time
    E. Differences Between the Final Rule and the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking
    F. Impacts of the Final Rule
II. Background
    A. Overview of EDR Technology
    B. Chronology of Events Relating to NHTSA's Consideration of 
EDRs
    C. Petitions for Rulemaking
    1. Petitions From Mr. Price T. Bingham and Ms. Marie E. Birnbaum
    2. Petition From Dr. Ricardo Martinez
    D. October 2002 Request for Comments
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    A. Summary of the NPRM
    B. Summary of Public Comments to the NPRM
IV. The Final Rule and Response to Public Comments
    A. The Final Rule
    1. Summary of the Requirements
    2. Lead Time
    B. Response to Public Comments
    1. Whether NHTSA Should Require EDRs
    2. EDR Data Elements
    a. Number and Types of Required Data Elements
    b. The ``Acceleration'' and ``Delta-V'' Data Elements
    c. Multiple-event Crashes and the ``Multiple-event'' Data 
Element
    d. Sampling Rates and Recording Intervals for Required Data 
Elements
    3. EDR Data Standardization (Format) Requirements
    4. EDR Data Retrieval and Whether to Require a Standardized Data 
Retrieval Tool/Universal Interface
    5. EDR Survivability and Crash Test Performance Requirements
    6. Compliance Date
    7. Privacy Issues
    8. Owner's Manual Disclosure Statement
    9. Preemption
    10. Applicability of the EDR Rule to Multi-stage Vehicles
    11. Applicability of the EDR Rule to Heavy Vehicles and Buses
    12. Automatic Crash Notification and E-911
    13. Definitions
    a. ``Trigger Threshold''
    b. ``Event''
    c. ``Event Data Recorder''
    14. Utilization of SAE and IEEE Standards
    15. Costs
    16. Other Issues
    a. Scope and Purpose
    b. Technical Changes to Definitions and New Definitions
    c. Data Capture
    d. Miscellaneous Comments
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulation

    Event data recorders have been used in recent years in a variety of 
transportation modes to collect crash information. EDR data will play 
an increasing role in advancing developing networks for providing 
emergency medical services. Specifically, EDR data can help the safety 
community develop ACN, electronic 911 (e-911), and other emergency 
response systems to improve medical services to crash victims. In 
addition, EDR data can also provide information to enhance our 
understanding of crash events and safety system performance, thereby 
potentially contributing to safer vehicle designs and more effective 
safety regulations.
    EDRs have experienced dramatic changes in the past decade, both in 
terms of their technical capabilities and fleet penetration. EDRs today 
demonstrate a range of features, with some systems collecting only 
vehicle acceleration/deceleration data, but

[[Page 50999]]

others collecting these data plus a host of complementary data such as 
driver inputs (e.g., braking and steering) and vehicle system status. 
The challenge for NHTSA has been to devise an approach that would 
encourage broad application of EDR technologies in motor vehicles and 
maximize the usefulness of EDR data for the medical community, 
researchers, and regulators, without imposing unnecessary burdens or 
hampering future improvements to EDRs.
    In light of the relatively high new vehicle fleet penetration of 
EDRs (currently estimated at 64%) and present trends, we do not believe 
that it is necessary to mandate the installation of EDRs in all new 
vehicles. Were these trends reversed or slowed, we would consider 
revisiting this assessment. For now, we believe that standardization of 
EDR data represents the most important area of opportunity in terms of 
enhancing the yield of benefits from EDRs. We recognize that the 
automobile industry has already invested considerable effort and 
resources into developing effective EDR technologies, so we want to be 
especially careful not to adopt requirements that would result in 
unnecessary costs.
    Accordingly, this final rule regulates voluntarily-provided EDRs by 
specifying a minimum core set of required data elements and 
accompanying range, accuracy, and resolution requirements for those 
elements. This will help ensure that EDRs provide the types of data 
most useful for the emergency medical services (EMS) community and 
crash reconstructionists, and in a manner that promotes the consistency 
and comparability of these data. We note that by specifying this 
minimum data set, we are not limiting manufacturers' ability to design 
EDRs that collect a broader set of data, provided that the required 
elements are present.
    The rule also includes requirements for the survivability of EDR 
data (so that it is not lost in most crashes) and the retrievability of 
EDR data (so that it can be obtained by authorized users). In sum, the 
objectives of our regulation are to get the right data, in sufficient 
quantity and in a standardized format, and to ensure that the data can 
survive most crash events and be retrieved by intended users.
    By promulgating a uniform national regulation for EDRs, it is our 
intent to provide one consistent set of minimum requirements for 
vehicle manufacturers that choose to install EDRs. We believe that this 
approach will not only enhance the quality of EDR data, but also 
facilitate increased numbers of new light vehicles equipped with EDRs. 
We also believe that this minimum data set provides key elements in a 
standardized format that will be useful for ACN or other telematic 
systems.

B. Developments Culminating in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

1. Early Agency Efforts on EDRs
    NHTSA has been assessing the potential benefits of EDR for over a 
decade, and in that time, we have witnessed a significant maturation of 
EDR technology. The agency initially began examining EDRs in 1991 as 
part of the Special Crash Investigations (SCI) program. In 1997, the 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory 
(JPL) recommended that NHTSA consider the possibility of requiring the 
installation of EDRs in motor vehicles. NTSB made additional 
recommendations related to EDRs in 1999 (i.e., suggesting that EDRs be 
installed in school buses and motor coaches). Since 1998, NHTSA has 
sponsored two Working Groups to examine and report on EDR issues.
    As discussed below, the agency received two petitions for 
rulemaking in the late 1990s asking that light vehicles be equipped 
with ``black boxes'' (i.e., EDRs) that would record data during a crash 
so that it could be read later by crash investigators. However, the 
agency denied those petitions because the industry was already moving 
voluntarily in the direction recommended by the petitioners, and 
because the agency believed that certain outstanding issues would best 
be addressed in a non-regulatory context.
    In 2001, NHTSA received a third petition for rulemaking related to 
EDRs from Dr. Ricardo Martinez, seeking a requirement for installation 
of EDRs as well as standardization of EDR data. After considering the 
Martinez petition and the current situation vis-[agrave]-vis EDRs, we 
decided to publish a request for comments as to what future role the 
agency should take related to the continued development and 
installation of EDRs in motor vehicles. This notice was published on 
October 11, 2002 (67 FR 63493), and after considering the input from a 
variety of interested stakeholders and the public, we decided to grant 
the Martinez petition in part (i.e., the request for standardization 
and retrievability) and to deny it in part (i.e., the request for an 
EDR mandate).
2. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    On June 14, 2004, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) proposing requirements for EDRs voluntarily installed by light 
vehicle manufacturers (69 FR 32932).\1\ The decision to conduct 
rulemaking reflected careful deliberation and our belief that EDRs 
represent a significant technological safety innovation, particularly 
for the emergency response safety community.\2\ Again, the proposal 
sought to standardize the elements and format of data deemed most 
appropriate for advancing our goals of enabling ACN and improving crash 
reconstructions and for ensuring the retrievability of that 
information. Most of these data elements are already recorded by 
current EDRs. It was not our intention to require an exhaustive list of 
non-essential data elements that would significantly increase the cost 
of EDRs, thereby jeopardizing the current, high rate of installation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18029-2.
    \2\ We note that NHTSA has been assessing the potential benefits 
of EDRs for over a decade, and in that time, we have witnessed a 
significant maturation of EDR technology. For further information on 
these agency research and analytical efforts, please consult the 
NPRM, which discussed this topic extensively (see 69 FR 32932, 32933 
(June 14, 2004)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the NPRM proposed to require light vehicles voluntarily 
equipped with an EDR to meet uniform, national requirements for the 
collection, storage, and retrievability of onboard motor vehicle crash 
event data. The proposal included Table I, Data Elements Required for 
All Vehicles Equipped with an EDR, which included 18 required elements 
that would have to be recorded during the interval/time and at the 
sample rate specified in that table. The proposal also included Table 
II, Data Elements Required for Vehicles Under Specified Conditions, 
which included 24 elements that would have to be recorded (during the 
interval/time and at the sample rate specified in that table) if the 
vehicle is equipped with certain devices or is equipped to measure 
certain elements. Table III, Recorded Data Element Format, included 
proposed range, accuracy, precision, and filter class requirements for 
each data element.
    The NPRM also proposed a methodology for data capture under 
specified conditions and circumstances (i.e., providing a hierarchy for 
when new EDR data would overwrite existing data already stored in 
memory). Simply put, EDRs are constantly monitoring a variety of 
vehicle systems and parameters when the vehicle is in operation, but 
the devices only have a limited amount of short-term (volatile) memory 
and long-term (non-volatile) memory available for recording for these

[[Page 51000]]

purposes. So when vehicle manufacturers develop EDRs, they must make 
judgments as to which data are the most important to be captured and 
recorded (e.g., events surrounding the deployment of an air bag are 
generally regarded as very important). Frequently, data stored in non-
volatile memory are over-written (replaced) or deleted. The NPRM's 
proposed provisions related to data capture were intended to ensure 
that EDRs not only capture data according to a uniform methodology, but 
also that the methodology maximizes the generation of data suitable for 
the agency's safety purposes.
    Because data standardization is only beneficial if the data can be 
retrieved and used, the agency decided to address the issue of data 
retrievability as part of our rulemaking. The NPRM also proposed to 
require vehicle manufacturers to submit sufficient non-proprietary 
technical information to the public docket as would permit third 
parties to manufacture a device capable of accessing, interpreting, and 
converting the data stored in the EDR. Under the proposal, such 
information would be required to be submitted to the docket not later 
than 90 days prior to the start of production of the EDR-equipped 
vehicle makes and models to which the information relates, and vehicle 
manufacturers would be required to keep that information updated, by 
providing information not later than 90 days prior to making any 
changes that would make the previously submitted information no longer 
valid. However, as discussed in the NPRM, our proposal offered one 
possible way to handle the data retrievability issue, and we sought 
comment on alternative approaches.
    In addition, the NPRM proposed survivability requirements for EDR 
data when the vehicle is crash tested under existing testing 
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 208, 
Occupant Crash Protection, 214, Side Impact Protection, and 301, Fuel 
System Integrity, and it also proposed to require that the data be 
retrievable by the methodology specified by the vehicle manufacturer 
for not less than 30 days after the test and without external power.
    Finally, the NPRM proposed a specific owner's manual statement 
related to EDRs that would make members of the public aware when their 
vehicle is equipped with an EDR and also explain the intended purpose 
of the EDR and how it operates.

C. Requirements of the Final Rule

    After careful consideration of the public comments on the NPRM, we 
are promulgating this final rule to establish a regulation for 
voluntarily-installed EDRs in order to standardize EDR data. The 
approach of this final rule is generally consistent with that of the 
NPRM, although we have further tailored the requirements of the 
regulation to advance the stated purposes of this rulemaking without 
requiring substantial costs or impeding the technological development 
of EDRs. We believe that with certain modest modifications, many 
current EDR systems can meet our goals of facilitating ACN and 
improving crash reconstructions.
    In overview, the final rule specifies uniform, national 
requirements for light vehicles voluntarily equipped with EDRs, 
including the collection, storage, and retrievability of onboard motor 
vehicle crash event data. It also specifies requirements for vehicle 
manufacturers to make tools and/or methods commercially available so 
that authorized crash investigators and researchers are able to 
retrieve data from such EDRs.
    Specifically, the regulation applies to passenger cars, 
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) of 3,855 kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded 
vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 pounds) or less, except for walk-in 
van-type trucks or vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. 
Postal Service, that are equipped with an event data recorder and to 
manufacturers of these vehicles. Subject to an exception for final-
stage manufacturers and alterers discussed below, compliance with the 
requirements of the final rule commences for covered vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2010. The final rule is intended 
to be technology-neutral, so as to permit compliance with any available 
EDR technology that meets the specified performance requirements.
    The following points highlight the key provisions of the final 
rule:
     Each vehicle equipped with an EDR must record all of the 
data elements listed in Table I, during the interval/time and at the 
sample rate specified in that table. There are 15 required data 
elements (see paragraph 563.7(a), Table I). Examples of these data 
elements are ``delta-V, longitudinal,'' ``maximum delta-V, 
longitudinal,'' ``speed, vehicle indicated,'' and ``safety belt status, 
driver.''
     Each vehicle equipped with an EDR that records any of the 
data elements listed in Table II identified as if recorded (most 
elements in that table) must capture and record that information 
according to the interval/time and at the sample rate specified in that 
table. Data elements listed in Table II as ``if equipped'' (i.e., 
``frontal air bag deployment, time to nth stage, driver'' 
and ``frontal air bag deployment, time to nth stage, right 
front passenger'') must record the specified information if they are 
equipped with the relevant item, even if they are not presently doing 
so.\3\ There are 30 data elements included in Table II (see paragraph 
563.7(b), Table II). Examples of these data elements are ``lateral 
acceleration,'' ``longitudinal acceleration,'' ``frontal air bag 
suppression switch status, right front passenger (on, off, or auto), 
and safety belt status, right front passenger (buckled, not buckled).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The ``frontal air bag deployment, time to n\th\ stage'' data 
elements provide critical timing data for vehicles equipped with 
multi-stage air bags, which will help in assessing whether an air 
bag is deploying correctly during a crash (i.e., whether the sensors 
are functioning properly). In drafting this final rule, we had 
considered including these two elements as required elements under 
Table I, but we recognized that not all vehicles are equipped with 
multi-stage air bags. Thus, by including these elements in Table II 
and requiring recording of that information if the vehicle is so 
equipped, we are, in effect, requiring this data from all vehicles 
equipped with an EDR and multi-stage air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The data elements required to be collected by the EDR 
pursuant to Tables I and II, as applicable, must be recorded in 
accordance with the range, accuracy, and resolution requirements 
specified in Table III, Recorded Data Element Format (see paragraph 
563.8(a), Table III).
     For EDRs that record acceleration, the longitudinal and 
lateral acceleration time-history data must be filtered in accordance 
with the filter class specified in Table III (i.e., Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J211-1, March 1995, 
``Instrumentation For Impact Test--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation'' 
(SAE J211-1, Class 60), which the regulation incorporates by reference 
(see paragraph 563.8(b)). Such filtering may be done during collection 
or post-processing.
     The EDR must collect and store data elements for events in 
accordance with the following conditions and circumstances as specified 
in paragraph 563.9:
    (1) In an air bag deployment crash, the data recorded from any 
previous crash must be deleted; the data related to the deployment must 
be recorded, and the memory must be locked in order to prevent any 
future overwriting of these data.

[[Page 51001]]

    (2) In an air bag non-deployment crash that meets the trigger 
threshold, all previously recorded data in the EDR's memory must be 
deleted from the EDR's memory, and the current data (up to two events) 
must be recorded.
     In order to ensure the survivability of EDR data in most 
crashes, the EDR is tested in conjunction with crash tests already 
required under FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS No. 
214, Side Impact Protection (see paragraph 563.10). Except for elements 
discussed below, the data elements required under Tables I and II must 
be recorded in a specified format, must exist at the completion of the 
crash test, and must be retrievable by a methodology specified by the 
vehicle manufacturer for not less than 10 days after the test.
    The EDR is not required to meet the above survivability 
requirements for the following data elements: (1) ``Engine throttle, % 
full,'' (2) ``service brake, on/off,'' and (3) ``engine RPM.'' These 
elements have been excluded from these requirements because vehicles 
are crash tested without the engine running for safety reasons, so the 
EDR would not be able to record the above data elements under those 
circumstances.
     For vehicles equipped with an EDR, vehicle manufacturers 
must include a specified statement in the owner's manual to make the 
operator aware of the presence, function, and capabilities of the EDR.
     In order to ensure the retrievability of EDR data, each 
vehicle manufacturer that installs EDRs must ensure by licensing 
agreement or other means that the necessary tool(s) are commercially 
available for downloading the required EDR data. The tool must be 
commercially available not later than 90 days after the first sale of 
the vehicle for purposes other than resale.

D. Lead Time

    In order to limit the transition costs associated with the 
standardization of EDR data, we sought in the NPRM to provide adequate 
lead time to manufacturers to enable them to incorporate necessary 
changes as part of their routine production cycles. To that end, the 
NPRM proposed a compliance date of September 1, 2008 for the EDR 
regulation. However, vehicle manufacturers commented that the lead time 
in the proposed rule would be inadequate to allow manufacturers to 
incorporate the necessary changes as part of their regular production 
cycle. Those commenters argued that a longer lead time is needed to 
minimize the costs and burdens associated with the EDR rule, 
particularly for those manufacturers which have already incorporated 
EDRs in a large proportion of their fleets.
    After carefully considering the public comments on lead time, we 
have decided to require covered vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2010 to comply with the requirements of this final rule, 
subject to the exception below. Again, it is our intention to limit the 
costs associated with this final rule for the standardization of EDR 
data, including implications associated with new definitions, new pre-
crash data collection, data download strategies, and data element costs 
associated with meeting the range and accuracy requirements. We believe 
that a lead time in excess of four years should prove adequate for all 
vehicle manufacturers and all vehicle lines, without the need for a 
phase-in. Vehicle manufacturers may voluntarily comply with these 
requirements prior to this date.
    Consistent with the policy set forth in NHTSA's February 14, 2005 
final rule on certification requirements under Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards for vehicles built in two or more stages and altered 
vehicles (70 FR 7414), we are providing final-stage manufacturers and 
alterers that produce vehicles covered by this regulation with an extra 
year to comply. Accordingly, these manufacturers must meet the 
requirements of this final rule for vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2011. However, final-stage manufacturers and alterers may 
voluntarily comply with the requirements of the regulation prior to 
this date.

E. Differences Between the Final Rule and the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking

    As noted above, NHTSA has decided to issue the present final rule 
to standardize EDR data in order to further our stated purposes of 
ensuring that EDRs record the data necessary for effective 
implementation of ACN, crash investigations, and analysis of safety 
equipment performance. In order to achieve these objectives (and to 
garner the derivative benefits that EDR-generated data may provide in 
terms of safer vehicle designs), we have largely retained the general 
approach presented in the NPRM. However, after further study and a 
careful review of the public comments, we have decided to make a number 
of modifications as part of the final rule in order to better reflect 
the current state of EDR technology and the data elements (including 
form and format) that will meet our research and policy objectives in a 
manner that is both effective and practicable.
    The main differences between the NPRM and the final rule involve a 
change in the definition of ``event data recorder,'' selection of data 
elements (i.e., which elements are required), changes to the range/
accuracy/resolution requirements, modification of the test requirements 
related to EDR survivability, and extension of lead time for 
implementing the regulation. A number of minor technical modifications 
are also incorporated in the final rule in response to public comments 
on the NPRM. All of these changes and their rationale are discussed 
fully in the balance of this document. However, the following points 
briefly describe the main differences between the NPRM and this final 
rule.
     In the NPRM, the term ``event data recorder'' was defined 
as ``a device or function in a vehicle that records any vehicle or 
occupant-based data just prior to or during a crash, such that the data 
can be retrieved after the crash. For purposes of this definition, 
vehicle or occupant-based data include any of the data elements listed 
in Table I of this part.'' However, several commenters stated that 
under this definition, virtually all vehicles would be considered to 
have an EDR, because most vehicles capture freeze-frame data required 
for internal processing; therefore, commenters argued that the proposed 
definition is overly broad (i.e., covering vehicles not equipped with a 
true EDR) and would create a de facto mandate for EDRs, contrary to the 
agency's expressed intent. Therefore, in this final rule, we have 
revised the definition of ``event data recorder'' to read as follows: 
``a device or function in a vehicle that records the vehicle's dynamic, 
time-series data during the time period just prior to a crash event 
(e.g., vehicle speed vs. time) or during a crash event (e.g., delta-V 
vs. time), intended for retrieval after the crash event. For the 
purposes of this definition, the event data do not include audio and 
video data.''
     In the final rule, we have decided to make certain 
modifications to the proposed tables of EDR data elements. Table I, 
Data Elements Required For All Vehicles Equipped With an EDR, has been 
amended by deleting five data elements (i.e., (1) longitudinal 
acceleration (moved to Table II); (2) engine RPM (moved to Table II); 
(3) frontal air bag deployment level, driver; (4) frontal air bag 
deployment level, right front passenger, and (5) time from event 2 to 
3) and by adding two data

[[Page 51002]]

elements (i.e., (1) time, maximum delta-V, and (2) delta-V, 
longitudinal).
    Table II, Data Elements Required for Vehicles under Specified 
Conditions, has been modified in two ways from the NPRM. First, the 
data elements now listed in Table II as ``if recorded'' will be 
required only if the data elements are recorded by the EDR (i.e., 
stored in non-volatile memory as would permit later retrieval), rather 
than the NPRM's approach which would have required those elements if 
the vehicle were equipped to measure those elements. However, for the 
final rule's data elements listed in Table II as ``if equipped,'' a 
manufacturer's EDRs must record the specified information, even if its 
current EDRs are not doing so.
    Furthermore, Table II has been amended by adding six data elements 
(i.e., Table II includes four new elements: (1) Lateral delta-V; (2) 
lateral cumulative maximum delta-V; (3) time to cumulative maximum 
lateral delta-V, and (4) time to cumulative maximum resultant delta-V. 
In addition, as indicated above, two items have been moved from Table I 
to Table II: (1) Longitudinal acceleration; and (2) engine RPM.).
     In the NPRM, we proposed a definition for ``trigger 
threshold,'' the point at which a recordable event is recognized by the 
EDR, as a ``change in vehicle velocity * * * that equals or exceeds 0.8 
km/h within a 20 ms interval.'' That definition encompassed movement in 
either a longitudinal or lateral direction.
    In the final rule, we decided to change the definition of ``trigger 
threshold'' for the longitudinal direction to ``a change in vehicle 
velocity * * * that equals or exceeds 8 km/h within a 150 ms 
interval.'' For vehicles whose EDRs measure lateral delta-V or lateral 
acceleration, we are using the same trigger threshold. In the final 
rule, we have changed the definition of ``time zero'' to account for 
different EDR crash detection strategies (i.e., using a ``wake-up'' 
time for EDRs that wake up just as a crash starts, or a change in 
velocity over a short period for EDRs that are continuously running). 
We have also added a new definition for ``end of event time.'' ``Time 
zero'' and ``end of event time'' are defined in a manner consistent 
with SAE J1698.
     In the final rule, we have changed our approach in terms 
of the type of data that an EDR may capture to assess crash severity. 
Specifically, the NPRM proposed to require EDRs to measure vehicle 
acceleration, but the final rule requires the EDR to record delta-V. 
However, if the EDR records acceleration data in non-volatile memory, 
that information must also be captured and recorded under the final 
rule.
     As part of the final rule, the agency has decided to 
reduce the number of events that must be recorded in a multi-event 
crash from three (as proposed in the NPRM) to two.
     For each of the proposed data elements (when applicable), 
the NPRM specified a recording interval and sampling rate in order to 
standardize EDR data across the spectrum of new light vehicles. We have 
decreased the pre-crash recording interval from 8 seconds prior to the 
crash, as proposed in the NPRM, to 5 seconds prior to the crash, and we 
have reduced the amount of time allocated for collecting crash data 
from 0.5 second, as proposed in the NPRM, to 0.25 second in this final 
rule.
     The final rule has modified the NPRM s data format 
requirements, which proposed to require covered data elements to be 
recorded in accordance with the range, accuracy, precision, and filter 
class specified in Table III, Recorded Data Element Format, where 
applicable. The major changes were: (1) To reduce the maximum range for 
acceleration measurements from 100 G maximum, as proposed in the NPRM, 
to 50 G maximum, and (2) to reduce the required accuracy of these same 
devices (and the data generated therefrom) from within 1 
percent, as proposed in the NPRM, to within 5 percent.
     After requesting comments on alternate approaches in the 
NPRM, the agency has adopted a different approach for ensuring that 
manufacturers make sufficient information available to permit EDR data 
to be downloaded by potential users. The NPRM proposed to require 
vehicle manufacturers make publicly available sufficient information to 
permit third parties to build a retrieval tool for EDR data by 
submitting such materials to the NHTSA Docket (and keeping such 
information updated). However, in the final rule, we have decided, 
consistent with manufacturers' comments, to require manufacturers to 
ensure by licensing agreement or other means that retrieval tools for 
EDR data are commercially available.
     In the NPRM, we proposed to require manufacturers to send 
detailed information on an ongoing basis to the agency about retrieval 
tools for EDR data. However, in the final rule, we have decided to 
require vehicle manufacturers to ensure that EDR retrieval tools are 
commercially available, something which manufacturers may accomplish 
either by producing the tools themselves or working directly with their 
suppliers through licensing agreements. Accordingly, the need for 
reports to the agency, as contemplated in the NPRM, no longer exists.
     The final rule clarifies that EDR survivability testing 
will be conducted without the engine running, in order to prevent a 
potentially hazardous situation for testing personnel and facilities. 
The final rule specifies that the ``engine throttle,'' ``service brake, 
on/off,'' and (3) ``engine RPM'' data elements are not required to be 
recorded as part of survivability testing. While we are retaining the 
general approach for survivability testing, we are decreasing the 
number of tests required to demonstrate survivability. Under the NPRM, 
we proposed using FMVSS Nos. 208 (frontal), 214 (side), and 301 (rear) 
tests, but in the final rule, we have decided to delete the requirement 
for the Standard No. 301 test.
     We have decided as part of the final rule to extend the 
lead time for compliance by covered vehicles by two years, until 
September 1, 2010. In addition, the final rule sets the compliance date 
for final-stage manufacturers and alterers at one year beyond the 
compliance deadline for other manufacturers (i.e., September 1, 2011).

F. Impacts of the Final Rule

    It is difficult for the agency to quantify the benefits expected to 
result from this final rule for standardization of EDR data. That is 
because the EDR devices themselves are not designed to be systems for 
crash avoidance or crashworthiness, but instead they offer an important 
tool to enable better EMS response and to better understand crashes and 
crash-related events. However, it is possible to describe the benefits 
of EDRs in qualitative terms.
    To the extent that EDR data are compatible with developing ACN and 
e-911 systems, emergency medical personnel are likely to arrive at a 
crash site better informed and thus better prepared to deal with the 
injuries they encounter. Because expedient and appropriate post-crash 
medical care is often critical to achieving the best possible outcome 
for the injured person, we believe that EDR data have the potential to 
make a positive contribution in this area.
    We also believe that EDRs can provide important benefits by giving 
researchers a relatively inexpensive way of obtaining higher quality 
data and thus a more accurate and detailed understanding of the 
circumstances surrounding crashes, including how the vehicles and their 
safety systems performed. In many cases, such

[[Page 51003]]

information may be derived from crash reconstructions, but such 
measurements tend to be reasoned estimates, as compared to the directly 
measured data provided by the EDR. There is certain information, such 
as how the air bag deployed (e.g., low level or high level) or when it 
deployed, that cannot be determined without an EDR. To the extent that 
EDRs help researchers and policymakers to better understand the events 
surrounding crashes, NHTSA and vehicle manufacturers will be better 
able to develop effective safety countermeasures as reflected in 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards and new vehicle designs.
    In sum, we believe that having a uniform and standardized data set 
for EDRs will increase the compatibility, comparability, and overall 
usefulness of EDR data, which will benefit the public directly through 
the availability of ACN and e-911, and indirectly through improved 
crash information for research and regulatory efforts.
    In terms of costs, we believe that the costs of this final rule 
should be minimal, averaging up to $0.17 per vehicle. Several factors 
contribute to this result. First, we estimate that about 64 percent of 
new light vehicles in 2005 are already equipped with EDRs, which have 
been provided by adding the EDR capability to the vehicles' air bag 
control systems. Thus, EDRs largely capture information that is already 
being processed by the vehicle, so EDRs are not responsible for the 
much higher costs of sensing much of the data in the first place. 
Therefore, the costs of this final rule reflect the incremental costs 
for vehicles voluntarily equipped with EDRs to comply with the 
requirements of the regulation.
    Second, the agency has sought to limit the number of EDR data 
elements and associated requirements to the minimum necessary to 
achieve our stated purposes. We have determined that the industry's 
current state-of-the-art largely meets our purposes, so we have found 
it generally unnecessary to specify requirements for additional sensors 
or other hardware that would increase EDR costs appreciably. (The most 
significant technology cost may involve the need to upgrade EDR memory 
chips.) Furthermore, we expect that administrative costs and compliance 
costs will be negligible.
    In sum, for the 64 percent of new light vehicles already equipped 
with an EDR, the estimated total cost to comply with the requirements 
of this final rule (i.e., Table I data elements) will range up to $1.7 
million. If we were to assume that all 15.5 million new light vehicles 
were equipped with EDRs, the estimated total cost will range up to 
$10.9 million.

II. Background

A. Overview of EDR Technology

    Event data recorders capture vehicle crash information.\4\ Basic 
EDRs capture only vehicle acceleration/deceleration data, while more 
sophisticated EDRs capture these data plus a host of complementary 
data, such as driver inputs (e.g., braking and steering) and the status 
of vehicle safety systems (e.g., seatbelt pretensioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``EDR'' can be used to describe many different 
types of devices. For this final rule, the term EDR means a device 
or function in a vehicle that captures the vehicle's dynamic, time-
series data during the time period just prior to a crash event 
(e.g., vehicle speed vs. time) or during a crash event (e.g., delta-
V vs. time), such that the data can be retrieved after the crash 
event. For the purposes of this definition, the event data do not 
include audio and video data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EDR captures crash data by monitoring several of the vehicle's 
systems, such as brakes, air bags, and seat belts. It continuously 
captures and overwrites (erases) information on these systems so that a 
record of the most recent period (up to a few seconds) is always 
available. If an ``event'' occurs (i.e., a crash meeting a pre-
determined threshold of severity), then the EDR moves captured pre-
crash information (up to a few seconds) into its long-term memory. EDRs 
also record (in long-term memory) data after the start of the crash (up 
to a few seconds), such as the timing and manner of the deployment of 
the air bags.
    EDRs have been installed as standard equipment in most light motor 
vehicles in recent years, particularly vehicles with air bags. We 
estimate that 64 percent of model year (MY) 2005 passenger cars and 
other light vehicles have some recording capability, and that more than 
half record data elements such as crash pulse data. This is based on 
manufacturer reports regarding their 2005 vehicles and then weighted 
using 2003 corporate-level vehicle sales figures to determine a fleet 
average.

B. Chronology of Events Relating to NHTSA's Consideration of EDRs

    In 1991, NHTSA's Special Crash Investigations program first 
utilized EDR information in an agency crash investigation. General 
Motors, the vehicle's manufacturer, cooperated with the program. 
Throughout the 1990s, NHTSA's SCI team utilized EDRs as one of their 
investigative tools, and from 1991 through 1997, SCI worked with 
manufacturers to read approximately 40 EDRs. Starting around 2000, the 
collection of EDR data was automated, and to date, NHTSA's crash 
investigation programs have collected information on about 2,700 
crashes with EDR files.
    The National Transportation Safety Board has also played a role in 
agency efforts related to event data recorders. The NTSB has been 
active in data recorders for a long time, first concentrating on 
aircraft and later on railroads and ships. More recently, NTSB has been 
active in the area of EDRs for highway vehicles. In 1997, the Safety 
Board issued its first highway vehicle EDR-related Safety 
Recommendation, H-97-18,\5\ to NHTSA, recommending that the agency 
``pursue crash information gathering using EDRs.'' NTSB recommended 
that the agency ``develop and implement, in conjunction with the 
domestic and international automobile manufacturers, a plan to gather 
better information on crash pulses and other crash parameters in actual 
crashes, utilizing current or augmented crash sensing and recording 
devices.'' NTSB subsequently closed this recommendation, citing NHTSA's 
actions as acceptable. Also in that year, the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), in a study 
conducted for NHTSA about advanced air bag technology, recommended that 
the agency ``study the feasibility of installing and obtaining crash 
data for safety analyses from crash recorders on vehicles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NTSB public forum on air bags and child passenger safety 
(March 1997). See https://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/rp9701.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In early 1998, NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Research formed an 
EDR Working Group comprised of members from industry, academia, and 
other government organizations. The working group was formed in 
response to NHTSA's growing interest in EDRs, the NTSB's 
recommendation, and interest from vehicle manufacturers. The group's 
objective was to facilitate the collection and utilization of collision 
avoidance and crashworthiness data from on-board EDRs. The NHTSA-
sponsored EDR Working Group published a final report on the results of 
its deliberations in August 2001.\6\ The working group found that EDRs 
have the potential to greatly improve highway safety, for example, by 
improving occupant protection systems and improving the accuracy of 
crash reconstruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Event Data Recorders, Summary of Findings by the NHTSA EDR 
Working Group, August 2001, Final Report (Docket No. NHTSA-99-5218-
9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1999, NTSB issued a second set of recommendations to NHTSA 
related to

[[Page 51004]]

EDRs (H-99-53 and H-99-54 \7\) recommending that the agency require 
standardized EDRs to be installed on school buses and motor coaches. In 
2000, NHTSA responded to these NTSB recommendations by sponsoring a 
second working group related to EDRs--the NHTSA Truck & Bus EDR Working 
Group. This Working Group collected facts related to use of EDRs in 
trucks, school buses, and motor coaches--a natural follow-up activity 
from the first working group that concentrated on light vehicles. The 
final report of the NHTSA Truck and Bus EDR Working Group was published 
in May 2002.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Bus Crashworthiness Issues, Highway Special Investigation 
Report (NTSB/SIR-99/04) (Washington, DC (1999)). See https://
www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1999/sir9904.pdf.
    \8\ Event Data Recorders, Summary of Findings by the NHTSA EDR 
Working Group, May 2002, Final Report, Volume II, Supplemental 
Findings for Trucks, Motor Coaches, and School Buses. (Docket No. 
NHTSA-2000-7699-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2004, NTSB issued EDR recommendations to NHTSA for a third time. 
This set of recommendations was prompted by a crash that occurred at a 
farmers' market in Santa Monica, CA, which resulted in multiple deaths. 
In examining that crash, the Safety Board found that they could not 
determine exactly what occurred with respect to the driver controls and 
indicated that EDRs should be installed on all new vehicles. 
Recommendation H-04-26 \9\ reads: ``Once standards for event data 
recorders are developed, require their installation in all newly 
manufactured light-duty vehicles.'' In 2005, NHTSA sent a letter to the 
Safety Board asking them to reconsider their recommendation, indicating 
that many new cars and light trucks are already equipped with EDRs and 
that standardization of installed EDRs is the main issue, which is 
being addressed by this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Rear-End Collision and Subsequent Vehicle Intrusion into 
Pedestrian Space at Certified Farmers' Market Santa Monica, 
California (July 16, 2003). See https://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/
har0404.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further information, NHTSA has developed a website about 
highway-based EDRs located at the following address: https://www-
nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/edr-site/.

C. Petitions for Rulemaking

1. Petitions From Mr. Price T. Bingham and Ms. Marie E. Birnbaum
    In the late 1990s, the agency denied two petitions for rulemaking 
asking us to require the installation of EDRs in new motor vehicles 
(see 63 FR 60270 (November 9, 1998) and 64 FR 29616 (June 2, 1999)).
    The first petition, submitted by Mr. Price T. Bingham,\10\ a 
private individual, asked the agency to initiate rulemaking to require 
air bag sensors to record data during a crash so that it could later be 
read by crash investigators. The petitioner cited a concern about air 
bag deployments that might be ``spontaneous,'' but he did not limit the 
petition to that issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Docket No. NHTSA-1998-4368-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second petition, submitted by Ms. Marie E. Birnbaum,\11\ also a 
private individual, asked us to initiate rulemaking to require 
passenger cars and light trucks to be equipped with ``black boxes'' 
(i.e., EDRs) analogous to those found on commercial aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Docket No. NHTSA-1998-4367-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In responding to these petitions, NHTSA acknowledged that EDRs 
could provide valuable information useful for analyzing crashes and 
improving motor vehicle safety. However, the agency decided to deny the 
petitions because the motor vehicle industry was already voluntarily 
moving in the direction recommended by the petitioners, and because the 
agency believed ``this area presents some issues that are, at least for 
the present time, best addressed in a non-regulatory context.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 63 FR 60270, 60270 (Nov. 9, 1998) (Docket No. NHTSA-1998-
4672-1); 64 FR 29616, 29616 (June 2, 1999) (Docket No. NHTSA-1999-
5737-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Petition From Dr. Ricardo Martinez
    In October 2001, the agency received a petition \13\ from Dr. 
Ricardo Martinez, President of Safety Intelligence Systems Corporation 
and former Administrator of NHTSA, asking us to ``mandate the 
collection and storage of onboard vehicle crash event data, in a 
standardized data and content format and in a way that is retrievable 
from the vehicle after the crash.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Docket No. NHTSA-2002-13546-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In his petition for rulemaking, Dr. Martinez argued that 
understanding what happens in a crash is essential to preventing 
injuries and deaths, and that EDRs would improve crash reconstruction 
analysis. The petitioner also stated that current crash reconstruction 
analysis is costly, time consuming, laborious, and often inaccurate. 
According to Dr. Martinez, the increasing sophistication and decreasing 
costs of information technology have created the opportunity to now 
mandate the capture, storage, and retrieval of onboard crash data, and 
a NHTSA rulemaking could greatly accelerate the development of ACN.
    The petition from Dr. Martinez was submitted shortly after the 
NHTSA EDR Working Group had published its final report. As discussed in 
more detail in the next section of this document, in October 2002, 
after the second working group had completed its work, we decided to 
request public comments on what future role the agency should take 
related to the continued development and installation of EDRs in motor 
vehicles. We decided to respond to Dr. Martinez's petition after 
considering those comments.

D. October 2002 Request for Comments

    On October 11, 2002, NHTSA published a request for comments 
concerning EDRs in the Federal Register (67 FR 63493).\14\ In that 
document, the agency discussed its prior involvement concerning EDRs, 
and it requested comments on what future role NHTSA should take related 
to the continued development and installation of EDRs in motor 
vehicles. The request for comments discussed a range of issues, 
including safety benefits, technical issues, privacy issues, and the 
role of the agency, and it also posed several questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Docket No. NHTSA-2002-13546-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to this request, we received comments from light and 
heavy vehicle manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, vehicle users, 
the medical community, advocacy organizations, safety research 
organizations, crash investigators, insurance companies, academics, and 
government agencies. We also received comments from a number of private 
individuals.
    To summarize, these comments raised issues concerning the safety 
benefits of EDRs (with most commenters suggesting EDRs will improve 
vehicle safety), technical issues surrounding a potential rulemaking on 
EDRs (such as the types of data elements to be collected, amount of 
data to be recorded, and crash survivability of EDR data), potential 
privacy issues associated with EDRs, NHTSA's role in the future of 
EDRs, and public perception of EDRs.
    After considering the comments and other information NHTSA had 
gathered on EDRs, NHTSA decided to grant the Martinez petition in part 
and commenced rulemaking.

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Summary of the NPRM

    On June 14, 2004, NHTSA published a NPRM in the Federal Register 
(69 FR 32932)\15\ proposing to: (1) Require that EDRs voluntarily 
installed in light vehicles record a minimum set of specified data 
elements useful for crash investigations, analysis of safety equipment 
performance, and automatic

[[Page 51005]]

collision notification systems; (2) specify requirements for data 
format; (3) increase the survivability of the EDRs and their data by 
requiring that the EDRs function during and after the front, side, and 
rear vehicle crash tests specified in several Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards; (4) require vehicle manufacturers to make publicly 
available information for a download tool that would enable crash 
investigators to retrieve data from the EDR; and (5) require vehicle 
manufacturers to include a brief standardized statement in the owner's 
manual indicating that the vehicle is equipped with an EDR and 
describing purposes of that device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18029-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA tentatively concluded that the proposed requirements would 
help ensure that EDRs record, in a readily usable manner, the data 
necessary for effective crash investigations, analysis of safety 
equipment performance, and automatic crash notification systems. NHTSA 
stated its belief that its proposal would help provide a better 
understanding of the circumstances under which crashes and injuries 
occur and would lead to derivative benefits, such as safer vehicle 
designs.
    In the NPRM, NHTSA responded to the Martinez petition \16\ for 
rulemaking, which asked the agency to ``mandate the collection and 
storage of onboard vehicle crash event data, in a standardized data and 
content format and in a way that is retrievable from the vehicle after 
the crash.'' The agency granted the petition in part, to the extent 
that it proposed a regulation to specify standardized data content and 
format for EDRs in a manner that is retrievable from a vehicle after a 
crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Docket No. NHTSA-2002-13546-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, NHTSA denied the petition to the extent that the agency 
did not propose to mandate EDRs. In the NPRM, the agency stated its 
belief that a mandatory EDR rule was not the best approach at this 
time, and we noted that the industry is continuing to move in the 
direction of installing EDRs in an increasing percentage of new 
vehicles. Further, the industry trend is toward designing EDRs to 
include greater amounts of crash data. Given this trend, we did not 
deem it necessary for us to propose to require the installation of 
EDRs, but remained open to considering this in the future.
    The NPRM also discussed other key issues including data elements to 
be recorded, data standardization, data retrieval, crash survivability, 
privacy, and lead time. The NPRM provided detailed tables of the data 
elements to be recorded under the proposal and the relationship of the 
data elements to the stated purposes of the rulemaking. While the NPRM 
did propose specific technical requirements and specifications, NHTSA 
requested comments on the proposed data elements, including whether the 
list sufficiently covers technology that is likely to be in vehicles in 
the next five to ten years.
    In terms of data standardization, the NPRM proposed a standardized 
format for each data element, specifying the corresponding recording 
intervals/times, units of measurement, sampling rates, data range/
accuracy/precision requirements, and where appropriate, filter class. 
However, the NPRM noted that there was currently not an industry 
standard for EDR format.
    The NPRM also solicited comments on EDR data retrieval. 
Specifically, NHTSA sought alternative approaches to the data retrieval 
requirements proposed in the NPRM, which would have required vehicle 
manufacturers to submit specifications for accessing and retrieving the 
stored EDR data and information in sufficient detail to permit 
companies that manufacture diagnostic tools to develop and build 
devices for accessing and retrieving the EDR's stored data.
    Regarding the functioning of EDRs and crash survivability, the NPRM 
proposed requirements for the EDR trigger threshold, EDR recording in 
multi-event crashes, capture of EDR data, and the performance of EDRs 
in crash tests.
    The NPRM discussed privacy issues related to EDRs, but it also 
noted that most privacy issues involve Federal and State laws separate 
from NHTSA's primary statutory authority.
    Finally, the NPRM discussed lead time for the regulation's proposed 
compliance date. The NPRM proposed a compliance date of September 1, 
2008, to permit manufacturers to make EDR-related design changes as a 
part of their regular production cycle in order to minimize costs.

B. Summary of Public Comments to the NPRM

    NHTSA received over 100 comments on the NPRM from automobile 
manufacturers,\17\ motor vehicle equipment suppliers and 
businesses,\18\ trade associations,\19\ advocacy and special interest 
groups,\20\ and individuals. (All of the comments on the NPRM can be 
reviewed in Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18029.) Commenters expressed a wide 
range of views, with vehicle manufacturers, motor vehicle equipment 
suppliers, and trade associations generally supporting the NPRM in 
concept, while raising a number of significant issues and recommending 
modifications. Special interest groups advocating highway safety 
generally called for a more extensive regulation; for example, these 
commenters asked NHTSA to require EDRs in all vehicles, to require more 
data elements to be recorded, and/or to require uniform EDR data 
retrieval so that first responders and other emergency personnel may 
easily access EDR data. A number of individuals who commented on the 
NPRM raised potential privacy concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Comments were received from the following vehicle 
manufacturers: (1) American Honda Motor Company (Honda); (2) 
DaimlerChrysler, VSO (DaimlerChrysler); (3) Ford Motor Company 
(Ford); (4) General Motors Corporation (GM); (5) Hyundai America 
Technical Center, Inc. (Hyundai and Kia); (6) Mitsubishi Motors R & 
D of America, Inc. (Mitsubishi); (7) Nissan North American, Inc. 
(Nissan); (8) Porsche Cars North American, Inc. (Porsche); (9) 
Subaru of America, Inc. (Subaru); and (10) Toyota Motor North 
America, Inc. (Toyota).
    \18\ Comments were received from the following motor vehicle 
equipment suppliers and other businesses: (1) Bendix Commercial 
Vehicle Systems, L.L.C. (Bendix); (2) Delphi; (3) Gelco Corporation 
d/b/a GE Fleet Services (Gelco); (4) Kast, GmbH (Kast); (5) Injury 
Sciences, L.L.C. (Injury Sciences); (6) Racing Information Systems; 
(7) Safety Intelligence Systems Corporation (SISC); (8) Siemens VDO 
Automotive, AG (Siemens); (9) TRW Automotive (TRW); and (10) Wyle 
Laboratories, Inc. (Wyle Laboratories).
    \19\ Comments were received from the following trade 
associations: (1) Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance); 
(2) American Trucking Association (ATA); (3) Association of 
International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.--Technical Affairs 
Committee (AIAM); (4) National Automobile Dealers Association 
(NADA); (5) Property Casualty Insurers Association of America 
(PCIAA); and (6) Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA).
    \20\ Comments were received from the following advocacy (and 
other) groups: (1) Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 
(Advocates); (2) Albemarle County Police Department; (3) American 
Automobile Association (AAA); (4) Canada Safety Council; (5) 
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia; (6) Electronic Privacy 
Information Center (EPIC); (7) European Commission; (8) Garthe 
Associates (Garthe); (9) Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers Vehicular Technology Society (IEEE-VTS); (10) Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS); (11) National Motorist 
Association; (12) National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB); (13) 
Public Citizen; and (14) Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following overview of the public comments reflects the key 
issues raised by the commenters, including whether the EDR rule should 
be mandatory, the number and type of data elements to be recorded, EDR 
data standardization requirements, EDR data retrieval and whether to 
require a standardized data retrieval tool/universal interface, and EDR 
crash survivability. Other commenters addressed the proposed owner's 
manual disclosure statement, potential privacy concerns, lead time, and 
costs. A more in-depth analysis of

[[Page 51006]]

comments along with the agency's response follows in section IV.B of 
this document.
Whether NHTSA Should Require EDRs
    In their comments, most automobile manufacturers supported the EDR 
standardization requirements for voluntarily-installed EDRs. However, 
GM, Ford, some industry associations, and most advocacy and special 
interest groups, urged NHTSA to require EDRs to be installed in all new 
vehicles. Commenters as diverse as GM and Public Citizen urged 
mandatory installation of EDRs. Arguments for why installation should 
be mandatory varied, but included concerns that manufacturers will opt 
out under a voluntary installation approach, that standardization 
requirements for voluntary-installed EDRs will discourage EDR 
installation, and that voluntary installation would take many years to 
build up sufficient information for useful study.
Number and Types of Required Data Elements
    The NPRM separated EDR data elements into two categories. The first 
category consisted of a set of data elements that must be recorded if 
an automobile manufacturer currently uses an EDR for any one data