Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Event Data Recorders, 2804-2806 [2019-01651]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
2804
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
respect to only the specific information
raised in this supplemental proposal—
that being (a) the modifications from the
original modeling required for the
supplemental October 9, 2018 modeling,
i.e., the revised stack parameters and
emissions for Rain and the contributing
source inventory and (b) the revised
August 2018 AOC. EPA is not reopening
the comment period on any other aspect
of the April 19, 2018 proposal, as there
was an opportunity to comment
provided at the time of that proposal on
all other elements of the submittals and
those elements remain unchanged from
the original proposal. The purpose of
this SNPRM is limited to an evaluation
of LDEQ’s August 24, 2018 submission
of the AOC and supporting October
2018 modeling, as well as the
supplement to the TSD, all of which are
contained in the docket for this
rulemaking. We are reopening the
comment period until March 11, 2019.
The scope of this supplemental
document and the reopening of the
comment period is strictly limited to
only the supplemental information. The
EPA will not respond to comments
received during the reopened comment
period outside the above-defined scope.
This action will allow interested
persons additional time to review the
supplemental information to prepare
and submit relevant comments. The
EPA will address all comments received
on the original proposal and on this
supplemental action in our final action.
Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this action, we are proposing to
include in a final rule regulatory text
that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are
proposing to incorporate by reference
revisions to the Louisiana sourcespecific requirements as described in
the Proposed Action section above. We
have made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available
electronically through
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Region 6 office (please
contact Mr. Robert Imhoff for more
information).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Act, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Act. Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to approve state law as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Feb 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed
rulemaking does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
Reference, Intergovernmental relations,
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 20, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018–28171 Filed 2–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 563
[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0177]
RIN 2127–AK86
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Event Data Recorders
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
AGENCY:
NHTSA withdraws its
December 13, 2012 notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed a
new Federal motor vehicle safety
standard (FMVSS) mandating
installation of an Event Data Recorder
(EDR) that meets NHTSA’s current EDR
standard in most light vehicles. At the
time NHTSA published the NPRM, the
agency noted that a significant number
of light vehicles were being sold
without EDRs, and said it believed a
mandate was needed. Today, EDRs are
installed on nearly all new light
vehicles. In light of these changed
circumstances, NHTSA believes that a
mandate for today’s EDRs is no longer
necessary and withdrawal of the NPRM
is therefore warranted.
DATES: The NPRM ‘‘Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards; Event Data
Recorders,’’ RIN 2127–AK86, published
December 13, 2012 (77 FR 74144), is
withdrawn as of February 8, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Electronic Access: You can
view and download related documents
and public comments by going to the
website https://www.regulations.gov.
Enter the docket number NHTSA–2012–
0177 in the search field.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical issues, contact Ms. Carla Rush,
Office of Crashworthiness Standards,
Telephone: 202–366–4583, Facsimile:
202–493–2739. For legal issues, contact
Mr. Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief
Counsel, Telephone: 202–366–2992,
Facsimile: 202–366–3820. The mailing
address for these officials is: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08FEP1.SGM
08FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Event data recorders (EDRs) are an
invaluable tool for aiding and validating
crash reconstruction, investigation, and
analysis. An EDR is a function or device
installed in a motor vehicle to record
technical information about the status
and operation of vehicle systems for a
few seconds immediately before and
during a crash for the primary purpose
of post-crash assessment.1 EDRs are
regulated under 49 CFR part 563.
Part 563 was established on August
28, 2006 (71 FR 50998) and requires that
light vehicles 2 equipped with EDRs
meet certain requirements for data
elements, data capture and format, data
retrieval, and data crash survivability.
An EDR as defined by Part 563 is not
required to record data such as audio or
video recordings and does not log
commercial operator-associated data,
such as hours of service.3
The requirements of Part 563 apply
only to those light vehicles that are
voluntarily equipped with EDRs that
were manufactured on or after
September 1, 2012. In the 2006
rulemaking, NHTSA chose not to
mandate installation of EDRs in order to
encourage voluntary development and
installation, while alleviating costs on
manufacturers and consumers. The
agency stated at the time that the
‘‘marketplace appears to be adopting
EDRs and we do not currently see a
need to mandate their installation.’’ 4
The NPRM
On December 13, 2012, NHTSA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to
convert Part 563’s ‘‘if-installed’’
requirements for EDRs into a new
Federal motor vehicle safety standard
(FMVSS) mandating installation of
EDRs in most light vehicles.5 The NPRM
did not propose making any changes to
the current EDR regulation’s
performance requirements, including
those for the required data elements. At
the time that NHTSA issued the NPRM,
the agency estimated that about 92
percent of model year (MY) 2010 light
Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
1 See
49 CFR 563.5.
used in this notice, ‘‘light vehicles’’ includes
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (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. See 49 CFR part 563.3.
3 49 CFR 563.5.
4 71 FR 50998, 51011 (Aug. 28, 2006).
5 77 FR 74144 (Dec. 13, 2012).
2 As
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Feb 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
vehicles had some EDR capability.
NHTSA believed that the universal
installation of EDRs would improve
vehicle safety by aiding the agency in
investigating potential safety defects
and developing new standards. Absent
a mandate, it appeared that
manufacturers of the remaining 8
percent of light vehicles would not
equip those vehicles with EDRs. Thus,
the agency believed that a safety need
existed to mandate the installation of
EDRs on light vehicles.
NHTSA Decision To Withdraw the
NPRM
NHTSA has decided to withdraw the
December 2012 NPRM because the
agency has determined that a mandate
is not necessary at this time to achieve
the nearly universal installation of EDRs
on new light vehicles. This is because
NHTSA’s internal analysis shows that,
for Model Year (MY) 2017, 99.6 percent
of new light vehicles sold were
equipped with EDRs that meet Part
563’s requirements. Given the nearuniversal installation of EDRs in light
vehicles, NHTSA no longer believes that
the safety benefits of mandating EDRs
justifies the expenditure of limited
agency resources.
Because NHTSA has determined not
to move forward with a mandate for
EDRs at this time, the agency is
withdrawing the December 2012 NPRM
from consideration. However, the
agency will continue its other efforts to
modernize and improve EDRs
regulations, including fulfilling the
agency’s statutory mandate to
promulgate regulations establishing an
appropriate recording duration for EDR
data to ‘‘provide accident investigators
with vehicle-related information
pertinent to crashes involving such
motor vehicles.’’ 6 In addition, NHTSA
is actively investigating whether the
agency should consider revising the
data elements covered by Part 563 to
account for advanced safety features.
Note on Comments on the NPRM
While NHTSA’s decision to withdraw
the NPRM was made for reasons
unrelated to the issues raised by
commenters, the agency believes it
would be beneficial to the public to
briefly describe and explain the
agency’s views on some key concerns
due to the large number of comments
received on them.
In response to the December 2012
NPRM, NHTSA received over 1,000
comments from a wide variety of
6 See the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act Public Law 114–94 (Dec. 4, 2015),
Section 24303.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2805
commenters, including trade
associations, vehicle manufacturers,
safety and privacy advocacy groups,
equipment suppliers, standards
development organizations, crash
reconstructionists, attorney
organizations, and over 950 individuals.
Safety advocacy organizations, crash
reconstructionists, and several other
commenting organizations generally
supported mandating the installation of
EDRs, citing the importance of the
information for vehicle safety. Vehicle
manufacturers, equipment suppliers,
and some crash reconstructionists, were
supportive of the idea of requiring
EDRs, but opposed placing the mandate
and associated EDR requirements in a
FMVSS. In addition, a number of
individuals also supported the mandate,
though many indicated that their
support was conditional on the
adoption of provisions to protect the
privacy of individuals. Other
commenters urged NHTSA to expand
the list of required data elements in
order to better support traffic safety
research and thus, improve the safety of
motor vehicles.
The majority of comments raised a
variety of privacy concerns associated
with EDRs and the data they record.
Many commenters seemed to believe
that Part 563 requires EDRs to
extensively record potentially sensitive
driver-related information, such as
vehicle location or driving behavior, on
an ongoing basis. This belief was
incorrect. The agency recognizes the
importance of privacy to consumer
acceptance of technology and that the
agency has a legal obligation to assess
and be transparent about the impacts of
Federal activities on individual
privacy.7 Part 563 requires only that
EDRs capture a narrow set of data
elements that are designed to assist
investigators with the reconstruction of
crashes, such as data relating to the
operational status of the vehicle at the
time of the crash.8 Moreover, Part 563
requires that EDRs capture this data to
the device or function only for the few
seconds leading up to a rare event, the
deployment of air bags, (i.e., not on an
ongoing basis).
Second, many commenters expressed
concerns with regard to who owns EDR
data, who has access to EDR data and
under what circumstances, and the
purposes for which it may be used.
NHTSA believes that Congress resolved
many of these concerns when it enacted
7 See E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107–
347, 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921–23; Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005, Public Law 108–447,
§ 522, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268–69.
8 49 CFR 563, Tables I & II.
E:\FR\FM\08FEP1.SGM
08FEP1
2806
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
the Driver Privacy Act of 2015 (DPA),
part of the Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act,9 which
addresses issues of EDR data ownership
and access. Specifically, the DPA states
that EDR data are the ‘‘property of the
owner, or, in the case of a leased
vehicle, the lessee of the motor vehicle
in which the event data recorder is
installed.’’ 10 It also specifies that data
recorded or transmitted by an EDR is
accessible only to the vehicle owner or
Law 114–94, §§ 24301–24302, 129 Stat.
1312, 1713–14 (2015).
10 Id.
Pmangrum on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
9 Public
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Feb 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
lessee, unless access falls into one of
several enumerated exceptions.11
Finally, many of the privacy-related
comments requested that NHTSA
mandate consumer notification of the
existence of EDRs. NHTSA agrees with
commenters that ensuring consumer
awareness is an important goal. A vital
tool the agency uses to inform
consumers about the existence and
function of various aspects of motor
vehicles, including the existence of and
function of EDRs, is the owner’s manual
that accompanies motor vehicles sold in
the U.S. Part 563 currently requires that
11 See
PO 00000
id.
Frm 00029
vehicle manufacturers that choose to
equip their vehicles with EDRs 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 the
EDR.12
Issued on February 5, 2019 in Washington,
DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95
and 501.5.
Heidi Renate King,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–01651 Filed 2–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
12 49
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\08FEP1.SGM
CFR 563.11.
08FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2804-2806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01651]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 563
[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0177]
RIN 2127-AK86
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Event Data Recorders
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA withdraws its December 13, 2012 notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed a new Federal motor vehicle safety
standard (FMVSS) mandating installation of an Event Data Recorder (EDR)
that meets NHTSA's current EDR standard in most light vehicles. At the
time NHTSA published the NPRM, the agency noted that a significant
number of light vehicles were being sold without EDRs, and said it
believed a mandate was needed. Today, EDRs are installed on nearly all
new light vehicles. In light of these changed circumstances, NHTSA
believes that a mandate for today's EDRs is no longer necessary and
withdrawal of the NPRM is therefore warranted.
DATES: The NPRM ``Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Event Data
Recorders,'' RIN 2127-AK86, published December 13, 2012 (77 FR 74144),
is withdrawn as of February 8, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Electronic Access: You can view and download related
documents and public comments by going to the website https://www.regulations.gov. Enter the docket number NHTSA-2012-0177 in the
search field.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, contact Ms.
Carla Rush, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Telephone: 202-366-
4583, Facsimile: 202-493-2739. For legal issues, contact Mr. Daniel
Koblenz, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone: 202-366-2992, Facsimile:
202-366-3820. The mailing address for these officials is: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
[[Page 2805]]
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Event data recorders (EDRs) are an invaluable tool for aiding and
validating crash reconstruction, investigation, and analysis. An EDR is
a function or device installed in a motor vehicle to record technical
information about the status and operation of vehicle systems for a few
seconds immediately before and during a crash for the primary purpose
of post-crash assessment.\1\ EDRs are regulated under 49 CFR part 563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 49 CFR 563.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 563 was established on August 28, 2006 (71 FR 50998) and
requires that light vehicles \2\ equipped with EDRs meet certain
requirements for data elements, data capture and format, data
retrieval, and data crash survivability. An EDR as defined by Part 563
is not required to record data such as audio or video recordings and
does not log commercial operator-associated data, such as hours of
service.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As used in this notice, ``light vehicles'' includes
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (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.
See 49 CFR part 563.3.
\3\ 49 CFR 563.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements of Part 563 apply only to those light vehicles
that are voluntarily equipped with EDRs that were manufactured on or
after September 1, 2012. In the 2006 rulemaking, NHTSA chose not to
mandate installation of EDRs in order to encourage voluntary
development and installation, while alleviating costs on manufacturers
and consumers. The agency stated at the time that the ``marketplace
appears to be adopting EDRs and we do not currently see a need to
mandate their installation.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 71 FR 50998, 51011 (Aug. 28, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM
On December 13, 2012, NHTSA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to convert Part 563's ``if-installed''
requirements for EDRs into a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard
(FMVSS) mandating installation of EDRs in most light vehicles.\5\ The
NPRM did not propose making any changes to the current EDR regulation's
performance requirements, including those for the required data
elements. At the time that NHTSA issued the NPRM, the agency estimated
that about 92 percent of model year (MY) 2010 light vehicles had some
EDR capability. NHTSA believed that the universal installation of EDRs
would improve vehicle safety by aiding the agency in investigating
potential safety defects and developing new standards. Absent a
mandate, it appeared that manufacturers of the remaining 8 percent of
light vehicles would not equip those vehicles with EDRs. Thus, the
agency believed that a safety need existed to mandate the installation
of EDRs on light vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 77 FR 74144 (Dec. 13, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA Decision To Withdraw the NPRM
NHTSA has decided to withdraw the December 2012 NPRM because the
agency has determined that a mandate is not necessary at this time to
achieve the nearly universal installation of EDRs on new light
vehicles. This is because NHTSA's internal analysis shows that, for
Model Year (MY) 2017, 99.6 percent of new light vehicles sold were
equipped with EDRs that meet Part 563's requirements. Given the near-
universal installation of EDRs in light vehicles, NHTSA no longer
believes that the safety benefits of mandating EDRs justifies the
expenditure of limited agency resources.
Because NHTSA has determined not to move forward with a mandate for
EDRs at this time, the agency is withdrawing the December 2012 NPRM
from consideration. However, the agency will continue its other efforts
to modernize and improve EDRs regulations, including fulfilling the
agency's statutory mandate to promulgate regulations establishing an
appropriate recording duration for EDR data to ``provide accident
investigators with vehicle-related information pertinent to crashes
involving such motor vehicles.'' \6\ In addition, NHTSA is actively
investigating whether the agency should consider revising the data
elements covered by Part 563 to account for advanced safety features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act
Public Law 114-94 (Dec. 4, 2015), Section 24303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note on Comments on the NPRM
While NHTSA's decision to withdraw the NPRM was made for reasons
unrelated to the issues raised by commenters, the agency believes it
would be beneficial to the public to briefly describe and explain the
agency's views on some key concerns due to the large number of comments
received on them.
In response to the December 2012 NPRM, NHTSA received over 1,000
comments from a wide variety of commenters, including trade
associations, vehicle manufacturers, safety and privacy advocacy
groups, equipment suppliers, standards development organizations, crash
reconstructionists, attorney organizations, and over 950 individuals.
Safety advocacy organizations, crash reconstructionists, and several
other commenting organizations generally supported mandating the
installation of EDRs, citing the importance of the information for
vehicle safety. Vehicle manufacturers, equipment suppliers, and some
crash reconstructionists, were supportive of the idea of requiring
EDRs, but opposed placing the mandate and associated EDR requirements
in a FMVSS. In addition, a number of individuals also supported the
mandate, though many indicated that their support was conditional on
the adoption of provisions to protect the privacy of individuals. Other
commenters urged NHTSA to expand the list of required data elements in
order to better support traffic safety research and thus, improve the
safety of motor vehicles.
The majority of comments raised a variety of privacy concerns
associated with EDRs and the data they record. Many commenters seemed
to believe that Part 563 requires EDRs to extensively record
potentially sensitive driver-related information, such as vehicle
location or driving behavior, on an ongoing basis. This belief was
incorrect. The agency recognizes the importance of privacy to consumer
acceptance of technology and that the agency has a legal obligation to
assess and be transparent about the impacts of Federal activities on
individual privacy.\7\ Part 563 requires only that EDRs capture a
narrow set of data elements that are designed to assist investigators
with the reconstruction of crashes, such as data relating to the
operational status of the vehicle at the time of the crash.\8\
Moreover, Part 563 requires that EDRs capture this data to the device
or function only for the few seconds leading up to a rare event, the
deployment of air bags, (i.e., not on an ongoing basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, 208, 116
Stat. 2899, 2921-23; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Public
Law 108-447, Sec. 522, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268-69.
\8\ 49 CFR 563, Tables I & II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, many commenters expressed concerns with regard to who owns
EDR data, who has access to EDR data and under what circumstances, and
the purposes for which it may be used. NHTSA believes that Congress
resolved many of these concerns when it enacted
[[Page 2806]]
the Driver Privacy Act of 2015 (DPA), part of the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act,\9\ which addresses issues of EDR
data ownership and access. Specifically, the DPA states that EDR data
are the ``property of the owner, or, in the case of a leased vehicle,
the lessee of the motor vehicle in which the event data recorder is
installed.'' \10\ It also specifies that data recorded or transmitted
by an EDR is accessible only to the vehicle owner or lessee, unless
access falls into one of several enumerated exceptions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Public Law 114-94, Sec. Sec. 24301-24302, 129 Stat. 1312,
1713-14 (2015).
\10\ Id.
\11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, many of the privacy-related comments requested that NHTSA
mandate consumer notification of the existence of EDRs. NHTSA agrees
with commenters that ensuring consumer awareness is an important goal.
A vital tool the agency uses to inform consumers about the existence
and function of various aspects of motor vehicles, including the
existence of and function of EDRs, is the owner's manual that
accompanies motor vehicles sold in the U.S. Part 563 currently requires
that vehicle manufacturers that choose to equip their vehicles with
EDRs 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 the EDR.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 49 CFR 563.11.
Issued on February 5, 2019 in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
Heidi Renate King,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-01651 Filed 2-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
