# Event Data Recorders > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A06-7094 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** August 28, 2006 - **Citation:** 71 FR 50998 ## Text 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 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-à-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 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 n th stage, driver” and “frontal air bag deployment, time to n th 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. (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 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 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 http://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 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 http://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 http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/har0404.pdf. For further information, NHTSA has developed a website about highway-based EDRs located at the following address: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/edr-site/index.html. 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 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 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 element (i.e., “required” data elements). The second category consisted of data elements that must be recorded only if the vehicle is equipped with a specified system or sensing capability (i.e., “if equipped” data elements). The NPRM listed 18 required data elements and an additional 24 “if equipped” data elements. Overall, automobile manufacturers, and other commenters connected to the automotive industry, stated their belief that the number of proposed required data elements is excessive in light of NHTSA's stated purposes. However, manufacturers differed in their assessment as to which of the data elements should be required to be recorded and their rationale why. The manufacturers agreed that the number of data elements should be reduced due to: (1) The estimated (excessive) cost of the EDR proposal; (2) limitations in memory and microprocessing capability of EDRs; (3) the potential to inhibit collection of more useful data; and (4) the desire to avoid complete electrical redesigns. In contrast, highway safety advocacy groups, such as Public Citizen and Advocates, suggested that the number of required elements is insufficient. This group of commenters generally argued that more data elements should be recorded in order to: (1) Provide additional data contribution for a more definitive crash causation evaluation; (2) address equipment likely to be used in the future; and/or (3) encourage uniformity. Some commenters, including Injury Sciences and Public Citizen, suggested adding the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) as a recorded data element. Still others commented that certain data elements in the “if equipped” category should be moved to the “required” category or vice versa. EDR Data Standardization The NPRM proposed specific technical specifications for each data element, including sampling rates and recording intervals, data standardization requirements, and data retrieval requirements. The commenters on this issue, mostly from the automobile industry, raised concerns about the proposed recording frequency and sampling rates, especially regarding the amount of microprocessing and memory required to process and store the proposed EDR data. According to the manufacturers, the increase in microprocessing and memory capabilities that would be required to comply with the proposed rule would be more costly than the agency anticipated. Therefore, manufacturers recommended alternative sampling rates and recording intervals that they believe would be less expensive. Automotive industry commenters also recommended other technical adjustments to the proposed recording requirements. They also generally disagreed with the proposed multiple-event recording requirement, with most stating that it is unnecessary and not current industry practice. Automobile manufacturers generally commented that the range, accuracy, and precision specifications contained in the NPRM should not be included in the final rule because the proposed parameters are beyond what is currently utilized in the state-of-the-art EDRs and the provisions are not necessary to achieve the agency's goals. Other commenters agreed with the concept of standardization, but suggested that it be accomplished in another manner, such as leaving it to the discretion of the manufacturers for optimal restraint system performance or applying SAE J1698. Highway safety advocates commented that sampling rates and recording intervals should be of sufficient duration to record the full crash event, especially for “rollover” crashes. EDR Data Retrieval and Whether To Require a Standardized Data Retrieval Tool With regard to data retrieval requirements, most manufacturers objected to furnishing non-proprietary technical specifications to NHTSA and offered alternative approaches for retrieving EDR data, such as through licensing agreements or making retrieval tools available to the public at a reasonable price. Highway safety advocacy groups argued that NHTSA should require standardization of data retrieval methods, that first responders should have access to EDR data, and that NHTSA should require a uniform architecture for data retrieval with a standardized interface location. EDR Survivability and Crash Test Performance Requirements The NPRM proposed that EDR data must exist upon completion of each crash test and be retrievable by a methodology specified by the vehicle manufacturer for not less than 30 days after the test and without external power. Several automobile manufacturers commented that the proposed crash test requirement is impracticable because they believe it would require tests to be performed with engines running and various vehicle systems activated, which would cause a danger to test personnel. As an alternative, commenters suggested a simulated laboratory test. Automobile manufacturers commented that the proposed rule would greatly increase testing costs. There were also comments on whether an alternative power source would be required to meet the 30-day provision in Sec. 563.10(d). Other commenters, including NTSB and Public Citizen commented that NHTSA should require that EDR data survive fire, fluid immersion, and severe crashes. Other Issues The NPRM proposed a compliance date of September 1, 2008, for the EDR regulation. Nearly all commenters, especially automobile manufacturers, believed that the agency underestimated the amount of time needed to meet the requirements of the proposed rule. Several manufacturers suggested that, as part of the final rule, the agency should provide a phase-in (e.g., a four-year phase-in beginning in 2008). In order to educate the public about EDRs and to gain public acceptance for use in passenger vehicles, the NPRM proposed that vehicles equipped with an EDR must also include a specified statement in the owner's manual. This statement would inform the vehicle owner about the presence of the EDR and its purposes. Most commenters, including automobile manufacturers and privacy advocates, expressed support for a disclosure statement. However, several commenters (including automobile manufacturers, EPIC, and individuals) suggested alternative language. Comments concerning the disclosure statement ranged from concerns about privacy and ownership of the EDR data to preemption and State disclosure requirements. Commenters, especially individuals, raised concerns about privacy. In the NPRM, we addressed privacy issues, stating our position that NHTSA's use of the data collected from EDRs would not raise privacy concerns. NHTSA obtains the owner's consent for collecting and using EDR data and carefully protects any information that could potentially be used to identify an individual. In the context of EDRs, the information in question that may be linked to an individual is the vehicle identification number (VIN), which is collected at the time EDR information is downloaded. The following discussion explains why it is necessary for the agency to collect VIN information in connection with EDRs, how such information is used by the agency, and the safeguards the agency takes related to the release of such information. VIN information (e.g., relevant to the make/model in question) is necessary to download and process the EDR data, because the commercial EDR download tool requires the VIN to be inputted into the program in order to link the EDR file with data to ensure proper engineering output. Without VIN input, similar data may mean different things depending on the vehicle from which it comes. This final rule does not require EDRs to record VIN information. However, the full VIN of a vehicle must be inputted into current EDR extraction tools as a key to ensure proper conversion of the electronic EDR data to a usable format. The full VIN is needed in order to account for running changes that may occur during a particular model year, thereby rendering it infeasible to use a shortened VIN. We note that such VIN information is normally available through other means during the course of crash reconstruction (i.e., through reading the VIN label on the vehicle itself). Further, other parties, such as law enforcement, could combine the EDR data with the type of personally identifying data routinely acquired during a crash investigation. In terms of the use of EDR data, the agency takes the EDR-generated information that it collects and incorporates the information into large crash-related databases in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of certain crash events; the information contained in these databases is not retrieved or retrievable by name or other individual identifier. The agency's rationale for protection of the VIN information contained in EDRs is as follows. By way of background, the VIN data identify the vehicle itself and do not specifically provide name, address, or other personal identifier information on an individual. Furthermore, EDR data alone cannot confirm exactly who was driving the vehicle at any given time (e.g., vehicle owner or other individuals (either with or without permission)). However, even though VIN information is not a “record” 21 or part of a “system of records” 22 as those terms are defined under the Privacy Act, NHTSA has nevertheless taken steps to prevent the release of VIN information, because VIN information can be used in various commercially-available programs to determine the identity of the current owner of a vehicle. 21 The Privacy Act of 1974 defines “record” as “any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph.” 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4). 22 The Privacy Act defines “system of records” as “a group of any records under the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual.” 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(5). As a practical matter, information contained in these records that has the potential indirectly to identify individuals is not made public, except as specifically required by law. Furthermore, prior to the release of information from databases containing EDR data (usually aggregated reports), the agency strips out the last six characters of the VIN (i.e., the portion that would allow identification of a specific vehicle and, potentially by indirect means, the identity of the vehicle's current owner). In light of the above, we believe that the agency has taken adequate steps to ensure individual privacy vis-à-vis its use of EDR data. However, we recognized that there may be privacy issues associated with EDRs related to the use of EDR data by entities other than NHTSA, such as law enforcement and EMS personnel, other government entities, and the automotive industry. Notwithstanding our extensive treatment of the privacy issue, we still received comments from individuals who believe that EDRs are an intrusion of their privacy because EDRs might record aspects of their driving behavior (e.g., whether they are speeding or not wearing a safety belt) that they do not want to be known. Automobile manufacturers and highway safety groups commented that the potential benefits of EDRs outweigh any privacy concerns. In addition to lead time, privacy, and owner's manual disclosure statement issues, commenters raised additional substantive issues including cost, preemption, and inclusion of ACN as a goal of the EDR rule. Many commenters, mostly automobile manufacturers, believed that NHTSA's cost estimates were significantly understated. According to these commenters, the proposed requirements outlined in the NPRM would contribute to higher costs because of the additional microprocessors and memory needed to handle larger amounts of saved data. These commenters also argued that the dynamic testing requirements would increase costs along with the requirements of accuracy, range, and precision, which they argued are in excess of current industry practice. Commenters requested that NHTSA specifically preempt inconsistent State and local regulations related to EDRs. Automobile manufacturers were concerned about the possibility of having to comply with inconsistent State regulations, especially concerning owner's manual disclosure statements and technical specifications of EDRs. With respect to ACN as a stated goal of the EDR rule, commenters associated with the automotive industry argued that this goal should be removed, since the proposed rule would not require ACN or specifically state that the rule will not limit the ability of manufacturers to offer ACN. Other, more specific and technical issues were raised by commenters. These issues will be treated and addressed in section IV.B of this notice. IV. The Final Rule and Response to Public Comments A. The Final Rule 1. Summary of the Requirements 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 requirements of this regulation are tailored to advance the stated purposes of this rulemaking without imposing unnecessary burdens or unduly impeding the future technological development of EDRs. In overview, the final rule specifies uniform, national requirements for EDR-equipped vehicles covered by the regulation, including the collection, storage, and retrievability of onboard motor vehicle crash event data. It also specifies requirements for vehicle manufacturers to make retrieval tools and/or methods commercially available so that crash investigators and researchers are able to retrieve data from EDRs. Specifically, the regulation applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a 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. 23 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. 23 These are the same applicability limits set for the air bag requirements in frontal crashes in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. The following points highlight the key provisions of the final rule: • Term “event data recorder” is defined as “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.” • 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, even if they are not presently doing so. (The “frontal air bag deployment, time to nth 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.) 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),” “frontal air bag deployment, time to nth stage, driver,” and “safety belt status, right front passenger (buckled, not buckled).” • 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, lateral, and normal acceleration time-history data must be filtered in accordance with the filter class specified in Table III (i.e., SAE J211-1, Class 60) ( 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. (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 that 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 the elements discussed below, the data elements required under paragraph 563.7 must be recorded in the format specified by paragraph 563.8, must exist at the completion of the crash test, and must be retrievable by the methodology specified by the vehicle manufacturer (as required under paragraph 563.12) for not less than 10 days after the test. The “complete file recorded (yes, no)” data element must read “yes” after the test. The EDR need not 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 ( see paragraph 563.11). • In order to ensure the retrievability of EDR data, each vehicle manufacturer that installs EDRs must ensure by licensing agreement or other means that retrieval tool(s) are commercially available for downloading the required EDR data. The retrieval tool must be commercially available not later than 90 days after the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. 2. Lead Time In order to minimize the costs associated with the standardization of EDR data, we have stated our intention to provide adequate lead time to manufacturers to enable them to incorporate necessary changes as part of their routine production cycles. In the NPRM, we had proposed a compliance date of September 1, 2008. However, in their comments on our proposal, some manufacturers had argued that a longer lead time is needed to make the necessary design and production changes. Others requested a phase-in of the EDR requirements, which was characterized as particularly important for manufacturers that already have a significant portion of their fleet equipped with EDRs. In light of the fact that installation of EDRs remains voluntary on the part of vehicle manufacturers and our concomitant desire to minimize costs, we have decided to adopt the recommendations of commenters to provide vehicle manufacturers with additional lead time. Accordingly, subject to the exception below, we have decided to require covered vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 to comply with the requirements of this final rule. We believe that lead time in excess of four years, particularly given the revised technical requirements, 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. Beyond the suggestions of the automobile manufacturers to increase the lead time associated with this rule, NHTSA conducted its own analysis of the technical changes needed to meet the standardization requirements and specifications of this final rule. As discussed below, we determined that the final rule will necessitate a number of design and technical changes to current EDRs. For example, current EDR systems have been designed independently by the vehicle manufacturers, thereby resulting in differences in data definitions. Thus, in implementing this final rule, manufacturers will need to make technical changes to their systems to reflect standardization in the data elements. Further, we have added new definitions related to EDR operation that will necessitate changes to EDRs. The “trigger threshold” required by this final rule is different than that which any vehicle manufacturer currently utilizes. Generally, vehicle manufacturers use wake-up levels to start collecting data, based upon vehicle deceleration. However, our final rule specifies that data collection be triggered by using change-in-velocity (delta-V) over a specified time period, which will require algorithm development and possibly additional non-volatile memory buffers to capture and analyze these vehicle data. The two-event capture and recording requirement in the final rule is also different from that which any vehicle manufacturer currently uses. While some current EDRs do capture and record two events, the data are not captured with standardized logic, as is specified in the final rule (e.g., standardization of the calculation of time between events). Another new requirement is that the EDR must lock the file if an air bag deploys during an event; this requirement is one that will need to be newly implemented by most of vehicle manufacturers. Another requirement in the final rule that is likely to necessitate changes in EDRs is the requirement for the capture and recording of pre-crash data. With the exception of GM and Toyota, no other vehicle manufacturer captures and records pre-crash data that can be downloaded using a commercially available tool. Ford is developing a pre-crash data recording capability, but Ford is collecting those data in the engine control module. All other vehicle manufacturers will need to update their systems to achieve pre-crash data collection, which will necessitate algorithm development and possibly additional non-volatile memory to continuously capture and hold these data until an event occurs. Further, the sampling of the pre-crash data will need to be standardized to two samples per second, in order to meet the requirements of the final rule. To our knowledge, no vehicle manufacturer currently collects pre-crash data at this sample rate (e.g., most GM and Toyota vehicles capture data at one sample per second during the interval specified in the final rule). Again, updating these systems in this fashion will require additional algorithm development and possible additional non-volatile memory. In addition, we anticipate that development of a turnkey operation for downloading EDR data will take significant time to accomplish. Vehicle manufacturers will need time to develop their licensed partner relationships for production of download tools. Finally, we note that the latest version of GM's EDR (e.g., ones used in the 2004 Malibu) does not capture and record delta-V data within the accuracy requirement specified in the final rule. In two tests performed by IIHS, which shared results with NHTSA for use in a paper for presentation at an International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), the delta-Vs recorded by the EDR were at or outside the accuracy specifications of the final rule. 24 Additionally, we note that GM has previously reported that the current generation of EDRs have data resolution and accuracy outside the levels specified in the final rule. 25 In sum, sufficient lead time will be required for vehicle manufacturers to make the changes necessitated by the final rule without incurring significant additional costs. 24 Niehoff, Peter, et al., Evaluation of Event Data Recorders in Full Systems Crash Tests, ESV Paper No. 05-0271 (2005). 25 “Recording Automotive Crash Event Data,” Chidester, Hinch, Mercer & Schultz, NTSB (1999). See http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_rec/proceedings/authors/chidester.pdf . 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), final-stage manufacturers and alterers of covered vehicles must comply with 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. B. Response to Public Comments 1. Whether NHTSA Should Require EDRs We expressly stated in the NPRM that we were not proposing to require all light vehicles to be equipped with EDRs. Under the proposed rule, vehicle manufacturers retained discretion regarding the decision of whether to install EDRs. However, if a vehicle were equipped with an EDR, the vehicle would be required to comply with the requirements of the proposed Part 563. We stated that we did not believe it was necessary to mandate installation of EDRs at this time, noting that the industry has substantially progressed in the development and installation of EDRs without the agency's requiring them. We estimated that at least 64 percent of model year 2004 passenger cars and other light vehicles have some recording capability, and more than half record elements such as crash pulse data. We noted also that industry was expected to install EDRs in an increasing percentage of new vehicles. The agency received several comments on the issue of whether we should require manufacturers to install EDRs in all new vehicles. GM commented that NHTSA should adopt a FMVSS that would mandate installation of EDRs on all passenger cars and light trucks with a GVWR up to 3,855 kg (8,500 pounds). GM stated that a mandatory EDR requirement would maximize safety benefits by ensuring that all covered vehicles capture and record key crash data. According to GM, an EDR mandate would also eliminate incentives for manufacturers to remove existing EDRs or to delay their introduction. In addition, GM argued that the standard should prohibit switches that would permit EDR disablement. Public Citizen, Advocates, NADA, and NTSB urged NHTSA to require the installation of EDRs. Public Citizen stated that NHTSA should require EDRs because these devices can provide valuable safety benefits, including: (1) Better understanding of crash causation and injury sources; (2) enhanced commercial vehicle safety; (3) better data on defect trends; (4) safer highway designs; and (5) improved emergency response to crashes. Advocates argued that unless the agency requires EDRs, data collection would take many years to gather sufficient information for useful study. Mr. Fink, a crash reconstructionist, stated that the rule should require EDRs in all vehicles sold in the U.S. Four individuals commented that they supported the NPRM, one of which indicated that EDRs should be mandatory. Several commenters argued that NHTSA's proposal to apply the rule to only those vehicles equipped with EDRs would either act as an incentive for manufacturers to remove EDRs from product lines currently equipped with EDRs or would discourage manufacturers from installing EDRs in new product lines. Ford argued the agency would need to issue a rule that requires installation of EDRs to accomplish the objectives set forth in the agency's proposal. Ford stated that it has been unable to develop a workable definition of an EDR that would uniformly create a truly voluntary requirement for all vehicle manufacturers and that avoids incentives for removal of existing recording capability or the deferred introduction of such capabilities. IIHS, Public Citizen, PCIAA, and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia joined Ford and GM in arguing that not requiring manufacturers to install EDRs would act as an incentive for vehicle manufacturers to remove EDRs from vehicles and/or would discourage installation of EDRs in new product lines. According to these commenters, the net result would be a reduction in the number of vehicles equipped with EDRs. While Ford expressed support for modifying language to create a truly voluntary requirement that would at the same time address these concerns, IIHS, Public Citizen, PCIAA, GM, and Children's Hospital argued for a mandatory rule (with PCIAA noting that the industry needs ample lead time to comply), which would eliminate the incentive to remove EDRs and/or the discretion not to install EDRs in new product lines. SISC supported the proposal's position that EDRs should include minimum standards for capturing crash data. SISC stated that current EDRs are focused on capturing data to evaluate the performance of safety systems; however, they do not adequately address the needs of capturing data for crash investigations. SISC stated that without mandatory minimum standards for capturing crash data, EDRs would not provide the type of information needed for safety research. On the other hand, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota supported a voluntary approach to EDR installation. DaimlerChrysler also commented that the definition of EDR should be modified to ensure that EDRs are voluntary. In explaining its request for modification, DaimlerChrysler stated that the NPRM's definition of EDR references the deployable restraint control module for the purpose of determining whether a vehicle is equipped with an EDR. DaimlerChrysler argued that all light vehicles are equipped with such control modules; therefore, the adoption of a definition making such a reference would effectively mandate EDRs for all applicable vehicles, contrary to the agency's stated intent. Porsche also argued that the NPRM's definition of EDR would effectively require manufacturers to install EDRs. Porsche argued that a vehicle might be capable of recording and storing a few pieces of static freeze frame data in the air bag control unit (i.e., an isolated observation or snapshot of a set of data such as the seat belt status, frontal air bag warning lamp status, etc., triggered by an impact exceeding a defined trigger threshold). Although such systems fall outside the common understanding of EDRs, Porsche argued that this type of recorded data would fall within the proposed EDR definition. Porsche stated that storage of freeze frame data should not, by itself, be a sufficient basis for determining that a vehicle is equipped with an EDR, particularly since such data do not provide information on pre-crash events. Siemens VDO Automotive AG characterized the rule as “semi-compulsory.” We have carefully considered the arguments presented by the commenters for requiring the installation of EDRs in all subject vehicles. We are not yet persuaded that it is necessary or appropriate to mandate the installation of EDRs. We believe that the industry's voluntary development and installation of EDRs, combined with the standardization requirements in this rule, will be sufficient to meet the agency's and public's near term needs. Standardized EDR data from the growing population of vehicles with EDRs, collected and compositely analyzed, will enable the agency to investigate crashes more effectively and to analyze safety equipment performance, resulting in improved agency understanding of crash and injury causation. These data will also lay a foundation for advanced crash notification systems. Further, insofar as achieving those near term goals is concerned, adopting a rule mandating EDR installation would result in an unnecessary cost for automobile manufacturers and consumers. To operate, EDRs need a databus. 26 Since less expensive vehicles are not equipped with a databus, a rule mandating EDR installation would require manufacturers to install a databus in those vehicles. While we are not presently compelling the installation of EDRs, it is our intention that their use continue to expand. 26 The bus (connections between and within the central processing unit, memory, and peripherals) is used to carry data. As for the agency's longer terms goals related to EDRs, we expect the extent of installation in new vehicles to continue increasing and to reach approximately 85 percent by model year 2010. Based on currently available information, such as that obtained in connection with our NCAP program, the new vehicles lacking an EDR in that model year will be primarily those manufactured either in Germany or Korea. As Korea has expressed interest in the development of an EDR standard under the International Standards Organization, it appears that Korean built vehicles also might eventually be voluntarily equipped with EDRs. Further, we believe that allowing the current voluntary, gradualist approach to increased installation of EDRs to continue is more appropriate for meeting those longer term goals than mandating an acceleration of further increases in the extent of installation. We are aware that some consumers are concerned about the ownership and use of EDR data. The voluntary approach provides additional time for implementing measures concerning those concerns. We have considered the comments of Advocates and SISC, asking us to mandate EDRs so that it is possible to gather additional data for safety research. The agency seeks to gather EDR information in a readily usable manner to analyze crashes and the performance of safety equipment as composite information (i.e., to discover statistically significant trends). We believe that the current level of EDR installation, combined with our standardization requirement, will yield data of statistical significance. The expected further increases in the extent of installation will improve the quality of our data still further. In light of our expected ability to meet these near term goals, we do not see the need to mandate EDR installation at this time. We will monitor future increases in the extent of installation of EDRs and revisit this issue if appropriate. We do not agree with the comments that our decision to adopt data standardization requirements without also mandating the installation of EDRs will induce manufacturers to remove EDRs from the vehicles in which they are currently installed or to drop plans for installing them in additional vehicles. The fact that approximately two-thirds of new vehicles are already equipped with EDRs is strong evidence of a significant incentive to install these devices. Further, as noted below, the data standardization requirements we are adopting in this final rule are less extensive and thus less costly that the ones we proposed in the NPRM. More specifically, we lowered the number of events and elements to be recorded. Based on our cost estimates (discussed below), we do not believe that adoption of our revised data standardization requirements will increase costs sufficiently to create a countervailing incentive for manufacturers to remove EDRs. We also note that consumer products, such as OnStar®, incorporate EDRs into their services. The consumer appeal of these consumer products strengthens the existing incentive for manufacturers to install EDRs in their vehicles. 27 In sum, we conclude that there are major benefits from the use of EDRs, but the marketplace appears to be adopting EDRs and we do not currently see a need to mandate their installation. The agency will monitor further progress in this area, and will be prepared to consider this question further if needed. 27 In response to the concerns that the breadth of our proposed EDR definition could have the effect of requiring the installation of EDRs, we note that we have revised the definition of EDR, as discussed below, to exclude static freeze-frame data elements. We have also considered GM's comment urging us to ban EDR “on/off switches” and the comments of other commenters asking that we require them. This final rule concerns the standardization of EDR data elements and ensuring that downloaded EDR data are available to intended users. We did not propose either requiring or precluding on/off switches in the NPRM. We note, however that on/off switches could limit the benefits provided by EDRs. As with the issue of mandating installation of EDRs, we think it premature to compel action on this issue, and will continue to monitor and assess whether action is warranted in the future. 2. EDR Data Elements a. Number and Types of Required Data Elements The NPRM provided a list of required data elements (a minimum set of elements required to be recorded if a vehicle is equipped with an EDR, regardless of whether those elements are presently recorded by the vehicle's EDR) and a list of “if equipped” elements (elements that would be required to be recorded only if the vehicle is equipped with the relevant safety system or sensing capability). NHTSA received several comments on the proposal's number of required data elements. Several manufacturers commented that the proposal's required number of data elements was excessive; however, manufacturers' comments differed as to which of the data elements should be deleted. Commenters representing highway safety advocacy groups suggested that the number of required elements is insufficient to meet NHTSA's stated goals of improving data compatibility, crash investigation, and safety. Some commenters suggested adding the VIN as a required data element. GM, DaimlerChrysler, IIHS, and Mitsubishi argued that the NPRM proposed an excessive number of data elements. GM provided a critique of the each of the data elements and recommended a different list of required data elements. GM's position was that the NPRM's data elements go beyond the minimum set of data elements needed by safety researchers and crash reconstructionists. GM argued that the number of required elements in the NPRM could compromise the ability of the vehicle's control modules to perform their primary function of deploying restraint systems. The number of required elements could also inhibit manufacturers from collecting other, more potentially useful data, to the extent that the required elements consume available processing capacity. 28 IIHS made a similar comment, stating that the number of proposed data elements increases the burden on manufacturers and the incentive for manufacturers to delay or eliminate safety features. Mitsubishi commented that NHTSA should only require those data elements that are needed to capture crash data that would truly be useful in improving motor vehicle safety. 28 Accordingly, GM, Daimler Chrysler, Ford, and Toyota recommended deletion of the following “required” data elements: (1) Engine RPM; (2) Longitudinal Acceleration (x-direction); (3) Multi-event Crash; and (4) Frontal Air Bag Deployment Level. The four automakers also recommended deletion of the following “if equipped” data elements: (1) ABS Activity; (2) Lateral Acceleration (y-direction); (3) Normal Acceleration (z-direction); (4) Occupant Size Classification; (5) Seat Position; (6) Steering Wheel Angle; (7) Stability Control; (8) Frontal Air Bag Suppression Switch Status; (9) Vehicle Roll Angle; (10) Disposal (second stage of a frontal air bag). Hyundai and Kia offered several comments regarding NHTSA's proposed data elements. First, they requested that, “data capture be limited to events that trigger air bag deployment.” Second, they commented that “engine RPM” and “engine throttle” data serve the same purpose and requested that only one of those data elements be required. Third, Hyundai and Kia commented that the data elements “Ignition cycle, crash” and “Ignition cycle, download” should not be required; Hyundai's and Kia's position is that these data elements do not provide data about the crash event, and that these elements would require additional programming and memory. According to these companies, requiring these data elements would increase costs and necessary lead time. Delphi recommended that NHTSA limit “the content of event records to those data that are of significant value to crash investigation and safety system performance analysis' in order to reduce the amount of memory that will be required. Delphi stated that each required parameter would consume memory for six instances of that parameter because of the need to hold and compare up to three events in temporary and permanent memory. Subaru and AIAM argued that the NPRM contained too many data elements, and each provided a recommendation for which data elements the final rule should require. Subaru recommended that NHTSA should re-select and prioritize data elements in order to increase the feasibility of compliance with a final regulation. Specifically, Subaru recommended that NHTSA “omit acceleration direction, tolerance range, and accuracy of G sensors from the requirement or allow significant additional lead time on a phase-in schedule.” AIAM commented that to reduce the number of systems that would require a complete redesign of vehicle electrical architecture, the minimum data set should include only the following data elements: (1) Driver and front passenger belt use; (2) throttle position; (3) brakes on/off; (4) ABS engaged/not engaged; (5) vehicle speed; (6) longitudinal and lateral vehicle acceleration; (7) delta-V; and (8) time of air bag deployment. In contrast to the commenters who suggested that the NPRM contains too many required data elements, Public Citizen and PCIAA encouraged NHTSA to require additional data elements. Public Citizen stated that to maximize the benefits of the EDR rule, NHTSA should standardize (i.e., require) a far more extensive list of EDR data elements. Public Citizen pointed to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Project 1616 (“Motor Vehicle Event Data Recorders”), which includes 80 EDR data elements used by different groups. Public Citizen commented that NHTSA did not propose to require many of the “top ten” data elements listed by the NHTSA-sponsored EDR Working Group. 29 Public Citizen argued that standardizing EDR data elements would ensure compatibility of EDR data. 29 We note that this group was a fact-finding group, and the findings were those of the group and not NHTSA's findings. PCIAA commented that the proposed rule focuses too much on restraint systems and not enough on systems to help the driver avoid collisions. PCIAA suggested that NHTSA should require data elements that would track driver inputs and the performance of the steering, suspension, or braking systems. According to PCIAA, the rule should include other equipment such as vehicle lighting or “intelligent vehicle” systems and should address equipment that is likely to be in used in the future, such as stability control systems, radar, cameras, and similar technology to monitor the driving environment. Nissan, Mr. Fink, Mr. Kast, 30 Bendix, and AAA all suggested specific data elements they believe should be required. Several data elements that the commenters suggested we require were not proposed in the NPRM. Nissan suggested that the following elements be required: (1) Delta-V direction (lateral, longitudinal, vertical); (2) roll rate (roll acceleration); (3) yaw rate; (4) gear position; (5) traction control system status; (6) number of downloads after event; and (7) passenger air bag disable indicator status. Mr. Fink stated that the rule should require a standard data set, including “vehicle speed, brake switch status, accelerator status, engine rpm, seat belt switch status and air bag deployment/belt pre-tensioner status.” Mr. Kast commented that, based on his studies of EDR data, the following elements are necessary to evaluate the cause of a crash: (1) Status of dimmed headlights; (2) status of high beam; (3) status of indicator left; (4) status of indicator right; (5) status of any special signals; and (6) yaw angle or yaw angle velocity. Mr. Kast's rationale is that the status of the lighting equipment and turn signals are important for the evaluation of crashes that occur in the dark. Mr. Kast also emphasized the importance of knowing the yaw angle or yaw angle velocity in order to calculate the trajectory of the vehicle. 30 Mr. Kast's comments were submitted independently and by Siemens VDO Automotive, AG. According to Mr. Kast, he is an “independent expert in the field of accident investigation and accident data recorders.” Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, L.L.C. commented that the following data elements should be included in the minimum requirements: (1) Transmission status (gear selection on automatic transmissions); (2) brake switch status; (3) accelerator (%); (4) engine speed (RPM); (5) date time; (6) engine hours; (7) odometer reading; (8) headlights on/off; (9) turn signal status; (10) cruise control (on/off); (11) ABS fault status; and (12) tire pressure (axle or each wheel or as regulated by NHTSA). AAA commented that rear seat air bags are being installed with increasing frequency and stated that NHTSA should consider requiring the recording of data elements associated with rear seat air bags in vehicles so equipped (e.g., rear seat occupant presence, size, seating position, and restraint use). SISC, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Delphi, and Public Citizen commented on the NPRM's categorization of data elements as “required for all vehicles equipped with an EDR” (Table I) or “required for vehicles under specified conditions” (Table II) and suggested that we change the categorization of certain data elements. SISC stated that NHTSA should mandate lateral acceleration as part of the required set of data elements. According to SISC, multi-axis accelerometers are becoming less expensive, and both longitudinal and lateral acceleration are essential to determining the true delta-V and the principal direction of force, which are critical elements of general crash investigation, biomechanics research, and the understanding of injury causation. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia made a similar comment, stating lateral acceleration should be a mandatory data element. Delphi suggested that data elements not normally part of the restraint control system should be moved from the table of data elements required if the vehicle is equipped with an EDR to the table (NPRM's Table II) of elements required under specific conditions (e.g., vehicle indicated speed, engine RPM, engine throttle, service brake status). According to Delphi, this would lower the cost of implementation for many manufacturers. On the other hand, Public Citizen argued for re-categorizing several data elements that the NPRM proposed to be recorded only under specified conditions (Table II) and instead require them (i.e., place them in Table I). Public Citizen believes that the final rule should require these data elements to be recorded (e.g., seat belt status for the front passenger). Public Citizen's rationale is that many of these elements only require additional sensing capabilities, which are fairly inexpensive in most cases. NTSB expressed concern that Table I and Table II will result in different data being available from different EDRs. It stated that the rule should require the same information from all EDRs to encourage uniformity of data and standardization of EDR usage. NTSB encouraged NHTSA to develop a comprehensive standardized list of data elements that would apply to all highway vehicles, including heavy vehicles. Several commenters, including Mr. Kast, Injury Sciences, Public Citizen, and EPIC, recommended requiring some type of date/time stamp and/or VIN information. Mr. Kast and Injury Sciences commented that a date/time stamp should be added to the required elements in order to correlate the recorded data with a crash event. Mr. Kast explained that the linkage is particularly important since low intensity accidents may be recorded. If this information is not required, Injury Sciences urged NHTSA to consider alternatives for linking data to a particular vehicle and accident. Public Citizen stated that a VIN data element would significantly increase the usefulness of EDR data by permitting crosschecks across various NHTSA databases. EPIC commented that the EDR should record the first eleven digits of the VIN, although “the unique serial number portion of the VIN—a personal identifier—should not be collected.” EPIC's rationale is that make, model, and manufacturing origin are important data for crash analysis. GM and Delphi raised cost issues pertaining to the data elements. GM requested that the final rule expressly state that the specified list of data elements is not intended to limit manufacturers' ability to voluntarily collect and record additional data elements. Delphi suggested that the condition for an element to be required (Table II of the NPRM) be changed from “vehicle is equipped,” to “data is available to the recording device.” According to Delphi, this would lower the cost of implementation for many manufacturers. Siemens VDO Automotive AG and Bendix commented on the state of technology and our EDR proposal. Siemens VDO Automotive AG commented that the NPRM definitions for data elements should be modified (i.e., made more stringent) to reflect the state of technology already available and in use. Siemens predicted that the changes would not result in significantly higher costs because the standardization and adoption by all manufacturers would lower the costs of production. Bendix suggested that solid state digital storage media and non-volatile storage devices could be used in conjunction with emerging technologies in the area of high-speed data links, which combine data, voice, and video data on a single communications link to record additional types of data. Nissan and Honda requested clarification on specific technical aspects of our proposal. Nissan stated that instead of recording the engine throttle, we should require recording the accelerator pedal operation. Additionally, Nissan suggested that the rule should permit two alternatives for determining the beginning of an event, as provided in SAE J1698, Vehicle Event Data Interface—Vehicular Output Data Definition . Nissan also sought clarification about the “complete file recorded” data element. Nissan questioned whether the “Yes” value indicates that the EDR functioned the whole time or whether the data set is complete (i.e., the EDR received good data from all systems). Honda sought clarification related to the data element for “frontal air bag deployment level.” Honda sought to confirm its understanding that this term means the percentage of maximum inflator output used for occupant restraint (i.e., inflator output excluding the output of the deployment for disposal, regardless of the delay timing of the second (disposal) stage deployment). TRW Automotive commented that the status of the anti-lock braking system (ABS) is not adequately indicated by the “ABS Activity” data element. TRW suggested that “ABS Warning Lamp (On/Off)” would provide a better indication of the status of the ABS system at the time a crash occurred. TRW Automotive commented that the data attributes for stability control systems should be modified because they do not clearly indicate the status. According to TRW, “off” should indicate that the driver has turned off the system, and an attribute “Not Available” should be added to indicate that the system is in a “not available” state. We indicated in the NPRM that it was not our intention to require manufacturers to install expensive technological hardware or software to meet our EDR standardization proposal. In the NPRM, we emphasized that vehicle manufactures have voluntarily made significant investments in EDRs and are already recording several data elements that suit our goals. The NPRM explained that our proposal sought to build upon the automotive industry's EDR accomplishments by standardizing the way data elements are captured and recorded. In other words, we considered our proposal to record the most important data elements relevant to crash reconstruction, the analysis of safety equipment performance, and ACN in light of the data already being processed by vehicles. We envisioned and it was our intent that the proposed EDR standardization requirements could be implemented by vehicle manufacturers at a minimal cost, since vehicle manufacturers had made EDR capability an additional function of a vehicle's air bag control system. We did not intend to require vehicle manufacturers to install equipment, such as additional accelerometers, to comply with the rule. (We estimated, for example, that an additional accelerometer could cost $20 per vehicle.) Our approach of standardizing the most important data elements at a minimal cost remains the same. However, after carefully considering the comments, we have re-evaluated the number and types of data elements that manufacturers should be required to standardize. We learned from the comments that the frequency, range, accuracy, and precision requirements (discussed subsequently) for many of the data elements we proposed would require an upgrade in sensors, microprocessors, and memory capability that would substantially add to the cost of complying with this rule. This was not our intention. We also learned that it is not current industry practice to record some of the data elements we proposed. In order to remain consistent with our approach of standardizing data at a minimal cost, we have revised the number of required data elements to reduce implementation cost and better reflect current industry practice. In revising the number and types of data elements to be recorded if a vehicle is equipped with an EDR (i.e., Table I), we deleted five items that we had proposed in the NPRM: “longitudinal acceleration,” “engine RPM,” “frontal air bag deployment level, driver,” “frontal air bag deployment level, right front passenger,” and “time from event 2 to 3.” We added two items: “time, maximum delta-V” and “delta-V, longitudinal.” 31 31 A discussion of our changes relating to the acceleration and delta-V data elements occurs in the next subsection, titled “The Acceleration and Delta-V Data Elements.” We deleted the “engine RPM” from Table I but added it to Table II. “Engine RPM” is somewhat related to “accelerator pedal position.” Accelerator pedal position reflects the driver's input to the engine. Engine RPM indicates the engine's response to that input. We believe that the two data elements are closely related, although distinct. We have reviewed many of GM's EDR crash data sets, and see little value in requiring “engine RPM” at this time. Moving this data element to Table II will reduce memory costs and the amount of data manipulation during pre-crash. After carefully considering the comments, we have also decided to remove “frontal air bag deployment level, driver” and “frontal air bag deployment level, right front passenger” from the list of required data elements (Table I). These elements would have indicated the deployment level of the driver's and right front seat passenger's air bag system. After further consideration, we believe that the same information we anticipated gathering from these deleted data elements can be ascertained using other data elements: “frontal air bag deployment, time to deploy, in the case of a single stage air bag, or time to first stage deployment, in the case of a multi-stage air bag, driver” (and the right front passenger equivalent) from Table I and “frontal air bag deployment time to n th stage, driver” (and the right front passenger equivalent) from Table II. In revising the number and types of data elements to be recorded under specified conditions (Table II), we added four items that did not appear in the NPRM: “delta-v, lateral,” “maximum delta-V, lateral,” “time to maximum delta-V, lateral,” and “time to maximum, delta-V, resultant.” 32 Commenters had requested changes in the data elements for longitudinal acceleration and delta-V, and as noted elsewhere in this document, the agency has adopted a number of those changes as part of this final rule. However, in order to fully implement those changes for the longitudinal direction, we believe it is necessary to also adopt data elements that constitute the lateral counterpart of the requested changes. This was done to provide standardized data elements that are consistent with those in Table I for longitudinal acceleration and delta-V. However, we have incorporated these additional data elements in Table II, rather than Table I. 32 A discussion of the data elements related to acceleration and delta-V follows below in section titled “The Acceleration and Delta-V Data Elements.” After considering the comments, we have decided to retain a number of the data elements that some manufacturers recommended that we delete, including “occupant size classification” and “frontal air bag suppression switch status.” Occupant size classification is important in determining whether the advanced restraint systems are working properly by drawing a comparison between the occupant and the safety system's classification. We believe that this is vital to that purpose of obtaining EDR data for the analysis of safety equipment performance. Frontal air bag on/off switch status is important in cases where the right front passenger air bag does not deploy. There is a possibility in some vehicles with no back seats that the air bag was turned-off at the time of the crash. It is critical that the EDR [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A06-7094. Public record. Not legal advice.