Monday,
`August 28, 2006
`
`Part II
`
`Department of
`Transportation
`
`National Highway Traffic Safety
`Administration
`
`49 CFR Part 563
`Event Data Recorders; Final Rule
`
`VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:28 Aug 25, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\28AUR2.SGM 28AUR2
`
`(cid:50)(cid:58)(cid:49)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)
`
`mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2
`
`

`
`50998
`
`Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
`
`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
`
`VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:28 Aug 25, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR2.SGM 28AUR2
`
`(cid:50)(cid:58)(cid:49)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)
`
`mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2
`
`

`
`Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
`
`50999
`
`others collecting these data plus a host
`of complementary data such as driver
`inputs (e.g., braking and steering) and
`vehicle system status. The challenge for
`NHTSA has been to devise an approach
`that would encourage broad application
`of EDR technologies in motor vehicles
`and maximize the usefulness of EDR
`data for the medical community,
`researchers, and regulators, without
`imposing unnecessary burdens or
`hampering future improvements to
`EDRs.
`In light of the relatively high new
`vehicle fleet penetration of EDRs
`(currently estimated at 64%) and
`present trends, we do not believe that it
`is necessary to mandate the installation
`of EDRs in all new vehicles. Were these
`trends reversed or slowed, we would
`consider revisiting this assessment. For
`now, we believe that standardization of
`EDR data represents the most important
`area of opportunity in terms of
`enhancing the yield of benefits from
`EDRs. We recognize that the automobile
`industry has already invested
`considerable effort and resources into
`developing effective EDR technologies,
`so we want to be especially careful not
`to adopt requirements that would result
`in unnecessary costs.
`Accordingly, this final rule regulates
`voluntarily-provided EDRs by
`specifying a minimum core set of
`required data elements and
`accompanying range, accuracy, and
`resolution requirements for those
`elements. This will help ensure that
`EDRs provide the types of data most
`useful for the emergency medical
`services (EMS) community and crash
`reconstructionists, and in a manner that
`promotes the consistency and
`comparability of these data. We note
`that by specifying this minimum data
`set, we are not limiting manufacturers’
`ability to design EDRs that collect a
`broader set of data, provided that the
`required elements are present.
`The rule also includes requirements
`for the survivability of EDR data (so that
`it is not lost in most crashes) and the
`retrievability of EDR data (so that it can
`be obtained by authorized users). In
`sum, the objectives of our regulation are
`to get the right data, in sufficient
`quantity and in a standardized format,
`and to ensure that the data can survive
`most crash events and be retrieved by
`intended users.
`By promulgating a uniform national
`regulation for EDRs, it is our intent to
`provide one consistent set of minimum
`requirements for vehicle manufacturers
`that choose to install EDRs. We believe
`that this approach will not only enhance
`the quality of EDR data, but also
`facilitate increased numbers of new
`
`light vehicles equipped with EDRs. We
`also believe that this minimum data set
`provides key elements in a standardized
`format that will be useful for ACN or
`other telematic systems.
`B. Developments Culminating in the
`Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
`1. Early Agency Efforts on EDRs
`NHTSA has been assessing the
`potential benefits of EDR for over a
`decade, and in that time, we have
`witnessed a significant maturation of
`EDR technology. The agency initially
`began examining EDRs in 1991 as part
`of the Special Crash Investigations (SCI)
`program. In 1997, the National
`Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and
`the National Aeronautics and Space
`Administration (NASA) Jet Propulsion
`Laboratory (JPL) recommended that
`NHTSA consider the possibility of
`requiring the installation of EDRs in
`motor vehicles. NTSB made additional
`recommendations related to EDRs in
`1999 (i.e., suggesting that EDRs be
`installed in school buses and motor
`coaches). Since 1998, NHTSA has
`sponsored two Working Groups to
`examine and report on EDR issues.
`As discussed below, the agency
`received two petitions for rulemaking in
`the late 1990s asking that light vehicles
`be equipped with ‘‘black boxes’’ (i.e.,
`EDRs) that would record data during a
`crash so that it could be read later by
`crash investigators. However, the agency
`denied those petitions because the
`industry was already moving
`voluntarily in the direction
`recommended by the petitioners, and
`because the agency believed that certain
`outstanding issues would best be
`addressed in a non-regulatory context.
`In 2001, NHTSA received a third
`petition for rulemaking related to EDRs
`from Dr. Ricardo Martinez, seeking a
`requirement for installation of EDRs as
`well as standardization of EDR data.
`After considering the Martinez petition
`and the current situation vis-a`-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.
`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
`
`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)).
`
`VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:28 Aug 25, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR2.SGM 28AUR2
`
`(cid:50)(cid:58)(cid:49)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:22)
`
`mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2
`
`

`
`51000
`
`Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
`
`purposes. So when vehicle
`manufacturers develop EDRs, they must
`make judgments as to which data are the
`most important to be captured and
`recorded (e.g., events surrounding the
`deployment of an air bag are generally
`regarded as very important). Frequently,
`data stored in non-volatile memory are
`over-written (replaced) or deleted. The
`NPRM’s proposed provisions related to
`data capture were intended to ensure
`that EDRs not only capture data
`according to a uniform methodology,
`but also that the methodology
`maximizes the generation of data
`suitable for the agency’s safety
`purposes.
`Because data standardization is only
`beneficial if the data can be retrieved
`and used, the agency decided to address
`the issue of data retrievability as part of
`our rulemaking. The NPRM also
`proposed to require vehicle
`manufacturers to submit sufficient non-
`proprietary technical information to the
`public docket as would permit third
`parties to manufacture a device capable
`of accessing, interpreting, and
`converting the data stored in the EDR.
`Under the proposal, such information
`would be required to be submitted to
`the docket not later than 90 days prior
`to the start of production of the EDR-
`equipped vehicle makes and models to
`which the information relates, and
`vehicle manufacturers would be
`required to keep that information
`updated, by providing information not
`later than 90 days prior to making any
`changes that would make the previously
`submitted information no longer valid.
`However, as discussed in the NPRM,
`our proposal offered one possible way to
`handle the data retrievability issue, and
`we sought comment on alternative
`approaches.
`In addition, the NPRM proposed
`survivability requirements for EDR data
`when the vehicle is crash tested under
`existing testing requirements of Federal
`Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
`Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection,
`214, Side Impact Protection, and 301,
`Fuel System Integrity, and it also
`proposed to require that the data be
`retrievable by the methodology
`specified by the vehicle manufacturer
`for not less than 30 days after the test
`and without external power.
`Finally, the NPRM proposed a
`specific owner’s manual statement
`related to EDRs that would make
`members of the public aware when their
`vehicle is equipped with an EDR and
`also explain the intended purpose of the
`EDR and how it operates.
`
`C. Requirements of the Final Rule
`After careful consideration of the
`public comments on the NPRM, we are
`promulgating this final rule to establish
`a regulation for voluntarily-installed
`EDRs in order to standardize EDR data.
`The approach of this final rule is
`generally consistent with that of the
`NPRM, although we have further
`tailored the requirements of the
`regulation to advance the stated
`purposes of this rulemaking without
`requiring substantial costs or impeding
`the technological development of EDRs.
`We believe that with certain modest
`modifications, many current EDR
`systems can meet our goals of
`facilitating ACN and improving crash
`reconstructions.
`In overview, the final rule specifies
`uniform, national requirements for light
`vehicles voluntarily equipped with
`EDRs, including the collection, storage,
`and retrievability of onboard motor
`vehicle crash event data. It also specifies
`requirements for vehicle manufacturers
`to make tools and/or methods
`commercially available so that
`authorized crash investigators and
`researchers are able to retrieve data from
`such EDRs.
`Specifically, the regulation applies to
`passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
`vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross
`vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,855
`kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an
`unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg
`(5,500 pounds) or less, except for walk-
`in van-type trucks or vehicles designed
`to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal
`Service, that are equipped with an event
`data recorder and to manufacturers of
`these vehicles. Subject to an exception
`for final-stage manufacturers and
`alterers discussed below, compliance
`with the requirements of the final rule
`commences for covered vehicles
`manufactured on or after September 1,
`2010. The final rule is intended to be
`technology-neutral, so as to permit
`compliance with any available EDR
`technology that meets the specified
`performance requirements.
`The following points highlight the key
`provisions of the final rule:
`• Each vehicle equipped with an EDR
`must record all of the data elements
`listed in Table I, during the interval/
`time and at the sample rate specified in
`that table. There are 15 required data
`elements (see paragraph 563.7(a), Table
`I). Examples of these data elements are
`‘‘delta-V, longitudinal,’’ ‘‘maximum
`delta-V, longitudinal,’’ ‘‘speed, vehicle
`indicated,’’ and ‘‘safety belt status,
`driver.’’
`• Each vehicle equipped with an EDR
`that records any of the data elements
`
`listed in Table II identified as if
`recorded (most elements in that table)
`must capture and record that
`information according to the interval/
`time and at the sample rate specified in
`that table. Data elements listed in Table
`II as ‘‘if equipped’’ (i.e., ‘‘frontal air bag
`deployment, time to nth stage, driver’’
`and ‘‘frontal air bag deployment, time to
`nth stage, right front passenger’’) must
`record the specified information if they
`are equipped with the relevant item,
`even if they are not presently doing so.3
`There are 30 data elements included in
`Table II (see paragraph 563.7(b), Table
`II). Examples of these data elements are
`‘‘lateral acceleration,’’ ‘‘longitudinal
`acceleration,’’ ‘‘frontal air bag
`suppression switch status, right front
`passenger (on, off, or auto), and safety
`belt status, right front passenger
`(buckled, not buckled).
`• 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.
`
`3 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.
`
`VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:28 Aug 25, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR2.SGM 28AUR2
`
`(cid:50)(cid:58)(cid:49)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:23)
`
`mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2
`
`

`
`Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
`
`51001
`
`(2) In an air bag non-deployment
`crash that meets the trigger threshold,
`all previously recorded data in the
`EDR’s memory must be deleted from the
`EDR’s memory, and the current data (up
`to two events) must be recorded.
`• In order to ensure the survivability
`of EDR data in most crashes, the EDR is
`tested in conjunction with crash tests
`already required under FMVSS No. 208,
`Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS
`No. 214, Side Impact Protection (see
`paragraph 563.10). Except for elements
`discussed below, the data elements
`required under Tables I and II must be
`recorded in a specified format, must
`exist at the completion of the crash test,
`and must be retrievable by a
`methodology specified by the vehicle
`manufacturer for not less than 10 days
`after the test.
`The EDR is not required to meet the
`above survivability requirements for the
`following data elements: (1) ‘‘Engine
`throttle, % full,’’ (2) ‘‘service brake, on/
`off,’’ and (3) ‘‘engine RPM.’’ These
`elements have been excluded from these
`requirements because vehicles are crash
`tested without the engine running for
`safety reasons, so the EDR would not be
`able to record the above data elements
`under those circumstances.
`• For vehicles equipped with an EDR,
`vehicle manufacturers must include a
`specified statement in the owner’s
`manual to make the operator aware of
`the presence, function, and capabilities
`of the EDR.
`• In order to ensure the retrievability
`of EDR data, each vehicle manufacturer
`that installs EDRs must ensure by
`licensing agreement or other means that
`the necessary tool(s) are commercially
`available for downloading the required
`EDR data. The tool must be
`commercially available not later than 90
`days after the first sale of the vehicle for
`purposes other than resale.
`D. Lead Time
`In order to limit the transition costs
`associated with the standardization of
`EDR data, we sought in the NPRM to
`provide adequate lead time to
`manufacturers to enable them to
`incorporate necessary changes as part of
`their routine production cycles. To that
`end, the NPRM proposed a compliance
`date of September 1, 2008 for the EDR
`regulation. However, vehicle
`manufacturers commented that the lead
`time in the proposed rule would be
`inadequate to allow manufacturers to
`incorporate the necessary changes as
`part of their regular production cycle.
`Those commenters argued that a longer
`lead time is needed to minimize the
`costs and burdens associated with the
`EDR rule, particularly for those
`
`manufacturers which have already
`incorporated EDRs in a large proportion
`of their fleets.
`After carefully considering the public
`comments on lead time, we have
`decided to require covered vehicles
`manufactured on or after September 1,
`2010 to comply with the requirements
`of this final rule, subject to the
`exception below. Again, it is our
`intention to limit the costs associated
`with this final rule for the
`standardization of EDR data, including
`implications associated with new
`definitions, new pre-crash data
`collection, data download strategies,
`and data element costs associated with
`meeting the range and accuracy
`requirements. We believe that a lead
`time in excess of four years should
`prove adequate for all vehicle
`manufacturers and all vehicle lines,
`without the need for a phase-in. Vehicle
`manufacturers may voluntarily comply
`with these requirements prior to this
`date.
`Consistent with the policy set forth in
`NHTSA’s February 14, 2005 final rule
`on certification requirements under
`Federal motor vehicle safety standards
`for vehicles built in two or more stages
`and altered vehicles (70 FR 7414), we
`are providing final-stage manufacturers
`and alterers that produce vehicles
`covered by this regulation with an extra
`year to comply. Accordingly, these
`manufacturers must meet the
`requirements of this final rule for
`vehicles manufactured on or after
`September 1, 2011. However, final-stage
`manufacturers and alterers may
`voluntarily comply with the
`requirements of the regulation prior to
`this date.
`E. Differences Between the Final Rule
`and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
`As noted above, NHTSA has decided
`to issue the present final rule to
`standardize EDR data in order to further
`our stated purposes of ensuring that
`EDRs record the data necessary for
`effective implementation of ACN, crash
`investigations, and analysis of safety
`equipment performance. In order to
`achieve these objectives (and to garner
`the derivative benefits that EDR-
`generated data may provide in terms of
`safer vehicle designs), we have largely
`retained the general approach presented
`in the NPRM. However, after further
`study and a careful review of the public
`comments, we have decided to make a
`number of modifications as part of the
`final rule in order to better reflect the
`current state of EDR technology and the
`data elements (including form and
`format) that will meet our research and
`
`policy objectives in a manner that is
`both effective and practicable.
`The main differences between the
`NPRM and the final rule involve a
`change in the definition of ‘‘event data
`recorder,’’ selection of data elements
`(i.e., which elements are required),
`changes to the range/accuracy/
`resolution requirements, modification of
`the test requirements related to EDR
`survivability, and extension of lead time
`for implementing the regulation. A
`number of minor technical
`modifications are also incorporated in
`the final rule in response to public
`comments on the NPRM. All of these
`changes and their rationale are
`discussed fully in the balance of this
`document. However, the following
`points briefly describe the main
`differences between the NPRM and this
`final rule.
`• In the NPRM, the term ‘‘event data
`recorder’’ was defined as ‘‘a device or
`function in a vehicle that records any
`vehicle or occupant-based data just
`prior to or during a crash, such that the
`data can be retrieved after the crash. For
`purposes of this definition, vehicle or
`occupant-based data include any of the
`data elements listed in Table I of this
`part.’’ However, several commenters
`stated that under this definition,
`virtually all vehicles would be
`considered to have an EDR, because
`most vehicles capture freeze-frame data
`required for internal processing;
`therefore, commenters argued that the
`proposed definition is overly broad (i.e.,
`covering vehicles not equipped with a
`true EDR) and would create a de facto
`mandate for EDRs, contrary to the
`agency’s expressed intent. Therefore, in
`this final rule, we have revised the
`definition of ‘‘event data recorder’’ to
`read as follows: ‘‘a device or function in
`a vehicle that records the vehicle’s
`dynamic, time-series data during the
`time period just prior to a crash event
`(e.g., vehicle speed vs. time) or during
`a crash event (e.g., delta-V vs. time),
`intended for retrieval after the crash
`event. For the purposes of this
`definition, the event data do not include
`audio and video data.’’
`• In the final rule, we have decided
`to make certain modifications to the
`proposed tables of EDR data elements.
`Table I, Data Elements Required For All
`Vehicles Equipped With an EDR, has
`been amended by deleting five data
`elements (i.e., (1) longitudinal
`acceleration (moved to Table II); (2)
`engine RPM (moved to Table II); (3)
`frontal air bag deployment level, driver;
`(4) frontal air bag deployment level,
`right front passenger, and (5) time from
`event 2 to 3) and by adding two data
`
`VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:28 Aug 25, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28AUR2.SGM 28AUR2
`
`(cid:50)(cid:58)(cid:49)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:24)
`
`mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2
`
`

`
`51002
`
`Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
`
`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