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 Multistage 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 50999 

1 Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18029–2. 

2We 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)). 

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 nonessential 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51000 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

3The ‘‘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. 

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 nonproprietary 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 EDRequipped 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 walkin 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. 

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 EDRgenerated 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 

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 deltaV, 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 nonvolatile 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 ‘‘wakeup’’ 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 multievent 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51003 

4The 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. 

5NTSB public forum on air bags and child 

passenger safety (March 1997). See http:// 

www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/rp9701.pdf. 

6Event Data Recorders, Summary of Findings by 

the NHTSA EDR Working Group, August 2001, 

Final Report (Docket No. NHTSA–99–5218–9). 

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-theart 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). 

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.’’

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. 

In 1999, NTSB issued a second set of 

recommendations to NHTSA related to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51004 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

7Bus Crashworthiness Issues, Highway Special 

Investigation Report (NTSB/SIR–99/04) 

(Washington, DC (1999)). See http://www.ntsb.gov/ 

publictn/1999/sir9904.pdf. 

8Event 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). 

9Rear-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. 

10 Docket No. NHTSA–1998–4368–1. 

11 Docket No. NHTSA–1998–4367–22. 

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). 

13 Docket No. NHTSA–2002–13546–3. 

14 Docket No. NHTSA–2002–13546–1. 

15 Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18029–2. 

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

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. 

For further information, NHTSA has 

developed a website about highwaybased 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. 

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. 

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

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.’’

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. 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51005 

16 Docket No. NHTSA–2002–13546–3. 

17Comments 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). 

18Comments 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). 

19Comments 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). 

20Comments 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). 

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. 

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. 

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 EDRrelated 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. 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51006 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 multipleevent 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51007 

21The 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). 

22The 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). 

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. 

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-a`-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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51008 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

23These are the same applicability limits set for 

the air bag requirements in frontal crashes in 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51009 

24Niehoff, 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. 

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 precrash 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. 

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), finalstage 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51010 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

26The bus (connections between and within the 

central processing unit, memory, and peripherals) 

is used to carry data. 

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 precrash events. Siemens VDO Automotive 

AG characterized the rule as ‘‘semicompulsory.’’

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. 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51011 

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. 

28Accordingly, GM, Daimler Chrysler, Ford, and 

Toyota recommended deletion of the following 

‘‘required’’ data elements: (1) Engine RPM; (2) 

Longitudinal Acceleration (x-direction); (3) Multievent 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). 

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. 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51012 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

29We note that this group was a fact-finding 

group, and the findings were those of the group and 

not NHTSA’s findings. 

30Mr. 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.’’

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. 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51013 

31A discussion of our changes relating to the 

acceleration and delta-V data elements occurs in the 

next subsection, titled ‘‘The Acceleration and DeltaV Data Elements.’’

32A discussion of the data elements related to 

acceleration and delta-V follows below in section 

titled ‘‘The Acceleration and Delta-V Data 

Elements.’’

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 nonvolatile 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

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 nth 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51014 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 turnedoff at the time of the crash. It is critical 

that the EDR capture this evidence to 

enable an evaluation of whether 

advanced restraint systems functioned 

properly. 

We have also decided to retain 

‘‘ignition cycle, crash’’ and ‘‘ignition 

cycle, download.’’ These two data 

elements provide a method to identify 

whether the data stored in the EDR is 

related to a crash under investigation or 

to a previous crash. 

As indicated above, several 

commenters recommended recording 

other data elements that we did not 

propose to record (e.g., roll rate, yaw 

rate, gear position, number of 

downloads after event, passenger air bag 

disable indicator status, status of lamps 

and signals, engine hours, odometer 

reading, cruise control, ABS fault status, 

‘‘intelligent vehicle systems,’’ steering 

input, and tire pressure). We have 

carefully considered these 

recommendations. We emphasize this 

final rule standardizes and requires 

(Table I) the most important data 

elements that are essential to crash 

reconstruction, the analysis of safety 

equipment performance, and ACN. We 

have decided not to require the 

recording of these additional data 

elements. We believe that recording 

these additional data elements, which 

are currently of lesser value for our 

stated purposes, would not only result 

in significantly higher costs but would 

also risk overburdening the 

microprocessing and memory 

capabilities of EDRs and increase 

potential record times. This increases 

the risk of system failure. We may 

revisit the distribution of data elements 

between Table I and Table II as 

technology advances, costs decrease, 

and the ability to record these data 

elements become less risky. We may 

also consider expanding Table II in the 

future as manufacturers expand the 

capability of EDRs and add additional 

sensors to motor vehicles that could be 

beneficial to motor vehicle safety. 

We have carefully considered 

comments from Mr. Kast, Injury 

Sciences, Public Citizen, and EPIC that 

we should include crash location, date/ 

time stamp and VIN as data elements. 

We believe that the data elements 

related to crash location, date, time, and 

VIN are not essential to meet our goals 

of crash investigation and safety 

equipment performance. As we have 

stated earlier, we are currently 

standardizing only data elements that 

are important for composite analysis. 

We have a need to gather information 

about specific crashes only as it is 

related to general trends that we may 

discover with the information we 

gather. Therefore, we presently find it 

unnecessary to require manufacturers to 

collect or to standardize this type of 

data. 

After considering Public Citizen’s 

comments, we disagree with the 

argument that the final rule must 

include all elements listed in the IEEE 

1616 MVEDR Standard report and the 

‘‘top ten’’ items presented in the 

NHTSA-sponsored EDR working group 

report. The IEEE 1616 report, which 

lists 80 data elements, is a compilation 

of the data elements that are available/ 

recordable at present, or expected to be 

in the future, for various vehicles. In 

other words, the data elements listed in 

the IEEE 1616 report are a compilation 

of all available data elements (i.e., a 

‘‘data dictionary’’), and not a 

recommended set of data elements. We 

do not believe it would be appropriate 

at this time to require automobile 

manufacturers to record all of the data 

elements contained in the IEEE 1616 

report. Doing so would substantially 

extend the number of standardized data 

elements, resulting in redundancy and 

the standardization of many data 

elements that are presently unrelated to 

the purposes of this rulemaking. 

Public Citizen also contends that we 

have not included many of the data 

elements listed in the ‘‘top ten’’ list 

found in the NHTSA-sponsored EDR 

working group report. As we stated 

above, this group was sponsored by 

NHTSA; however, we have never 

adopted its findings as our own. 

However, we note that the final rule 

does include standardization protocols 

for many of the same data elements that 

are listed in the ‘‘top ten’’ list, including 

longitudinal/lateral acceleration, seat 

belt status, pre-crash data (e.g., steering 

wheel angle, brake use, vehicle speed), 

vehicle roll angle, ABS, stability control, 

and air bag data. 

We have considered Delphi’s 

recommendation that data elements not 

pertinent to restraint control and/or 

crash reconstruction should be moved 

to Table II. Our NPRM was based on this 

premise; that is, Table I contains the 

data elements critical to crash 

reconstruction, advanced restraint 

operation, and enabling ACN. We 

continue to support our approach for 

Table I data elements. However, we 

have modified Table I slightly by: (1) 

Moving the ‘‘engine RPM’’ data element 

to Table II, because it can generally be 

inferred from accelerator pedal position; 

(2) substituting delta-V-related crash 

severity measurements for acceleration 

measurements to reduce complication 

and cost of EDRs, and (3) dropping 

those data elements related to a third 

event, because we believe two events 

will capture most crashes with multiple, 

non-trivial events. 

NTSB expressed its desire for 

recording accelerator/brake pedal 

positions in certain special crashes. The 

revised Table I retains both of these data 

elements. 

We have also considered Public 

Citizen’s arguments that several data 

elements currently listed in Table II 

could be moved to Table I (required) for 

minimal to no cost (e.g., safety belt 

status, front passenger). The costs 

associated with placing particular data 

elements in Table I is not the sole factor 

in determining whether to include that 

data element in the core set listed in 

Table I. To minimize the risk of data 

loss, we must also consider the current 

capabilities of microprocessors to 

process the information and the 

availability of memory storage capacity. 

The longer or larger the data file, the 

more complicated it is to record it 

successfully during a crash. We believe 

our Table I required list and our Table 

II (standard formats for data elements 

recorded by manufacturers) provide a 

reasonable balance of these concerns 

and priorities. We may reevaluate the 

number and types of data elements in 

the future as EDRs, memory, and 

microprocessing continue to develop. In 

the meantime, we believe that it is 

appropriate to keep ‘‘safety belt status, 

right front passenger’’ and other similar 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51015 

data elements in Table II. We emphasize 

that our final rule requires a minimum 

set of data, and manufacturers may and 

most likely will exceed this minimum 

data set, incorporating data elements 

listed in Table II and event data 

elements we have not listed in this final 

rule. 

We note that the data elements in 

Table II must be standardized if 

recorded. Therefore, we believe that 

manufacturers that are currently 

recording these data elements will be 

able to standardize at a minimal cost. 

We have considered NTSB’s comment 

encouraging uniformity in the number 

and types of data elements recorded for 

all EDRs. As noted above, we believe 

this final rule standardizes a core set of 

data elements that will be useful for 

crash reconstruction, the analysis of 

safety equipment performance, and the 

development of ACN. Table I does 

standardize a core set of data elements 

among all vehicles equipped with an 

EDR. However, we recognize that 

vehicle manufacturers are in different 

stages of technological development 

with their EDRs. Some manufacturers 

have made greater strides in the 

development of EDRs and the number of 

recorded data elements while others 

have been slower to evolve. We 

developed Table II to standardize data 

elements that are currently recorded by 

some manufacturers, but not others. 

NTSB commented that they were 

concerned that our approach of a 

minimum data set (Table I) combined 

with an optional data set (Table II) 

would result in different vehicles 

recording different data elements. This 

regulation establishes a minimum data 

set for vehicles that are equipped with 

an EDR. Manufacturers are permitted to 

record other additional data elements, 

as they believe fit the needs of their 

vehicles and equipment installed on 

their vehicles. We have taken an 

approach that will: (1) Ensure that all 

vehicles equipped with an EDR will 

have a minimum set of data, (2) provide 

standardization for additional priority 

data elements, and (3) allow 

manufacturers to obtain other additional 

data as they deem appropriate to meet 

their needs. As EDRs evolve, NHTSA 

may reevaluate this approach in future 

rulemakings. 

We also want to provide 

manufacturers with the flexibility to 

improve their EDR designs and record a 

diverse group of data elements so that 

we may continue to study the 

usefulness of various data elements in 

terms of safety. We view EDRs as a new 

technology that has not seen much 

maturation outside of its initial 

inception as part of the air bag module. 

This rulemaking, we believe, is a 

positive step toward guiding the 

development of EDR technology for 

vehicle safety purposes by both 

requiring a standardized set of data 

elements that we believe will be useful 

while at the same time providing 

manufacturers with the ability to 

continue to evolve the EDR. 

Likewise, we do not agree with IIHS 

that the number of data elements we 

have chosen to standardize will provide 

incentive for manufacturers to delay or 

eliminate safety features. Our cost 

estimates indicate that our 

standardization requirements, as revised 

in this final rule, will not result in 

significant costs to manufacturers. As 

stated above, we have narrowed the 

recording requirements for EDRs. Also, 

we believe that our decision to 

standardize a core set of data elements 

and requiring standardization of data 

elements ‘‘if recorded’’ will allow 

flexibility for manufacturers to research 

and develop EDRs. 

We have considered Hyundai’s and 

Kia’s argument that we should limit the 

recording of data to events that trigger 

air bag deployment. We do not believe 

that limiting our data to events that 

trigger air bag deployment would be 

sufficient for our purposes. We want to 

know about events that should have 

deployed air bags, but did not do so, 

indicating the possible existence of a 

defect. Further, we seek to gather data 

not only to analyze the performance of 

air bags, but also to analyze the 

performance of other safety equipment, 

such as seat belts. We also seek to gather 

data helpful for crash reconstruction. 

We believe that this data can be 

standardized and recorded without 

significant cost. Further, we anticipate 

that development of e-911 and ACN 

systems may lead vehicle manufacturers 

to incorporate additional elements 

besides air bag deployment; such 

elements may provide information to 

EMS regarding other crash modes, such 

as side impact and rollover, as sensor 

technologies advance and their costs 

decline. 

We do not agree with AIAM that our 

final rule will require a complete 

redesign of vehicle electrical 

architecture if we do not reduce the 

minimum data set to the eight elements 

it proposes. As discussed in the costs 

section, we anticipate negligible 

redesign to the electrical architecture of 

vehicles as a result of our final rule. 

Additionally, we note that our new 

Table II is similar to AIAM’s 

recommendation. Our Table II includes 

ABS engaged/not engaged and right 

front passenger belt use. 

Nissan requested clarification about 

the ‘‘complete file recorded’’ data 

element, asking whether the ‘‘yes’’ value 

indicates that the EDR functioned the 

whole time or whether the data set is 

complete. A complete record is a record 

that ends normally, regardless of the 

amount of data. An incomplete record is 

one that ends abnormally. For example, 

a complete value with ‘‘yes’’ indication 

would include a scenario where all data 

elements were captured successfully 

and recorded to memory or where some 

elements were not captured because of 

device failure but the full record was 

recorded to memory. Examples of when 

there is an incomplete record is where 

all data was captured successfully, but 

the record function interrupted and the 

file is incomplete, or in the case of a 

power or system failure, there is no data 

captured, so there is no value. 

TRW commented that the data 

element ‘‘ABS Activity’’ does not 

adequately indicate the status of the 

ABS system. In the NPRM, we intended 

the word ‘‘status’’ to mean that the ABS 

was actively controlling the brake 

forces, not whether the system status 

was operational. We would expect ‘‘on’’

to mean that the vehicle’s ABS was 

actively controlling the vehicle brakes. 

Conversely, we would expect ‘‘off’’ to be 

used at all other times. For example, if 

a person is stopping and presses the 

brakes moderately in normal driving 

conditions, then we would expect the 

service brake operation to indicate ‘‘on.’’

If driver uses hard braking, activating 

the ABS, then the ABS activity would 

indicate ‘‘on’’ for that time period. The 

‘‘service brake’’ data element would 

continue to read ‘‘on’’ during periods of 

ABS activity. 

TRW also commented that the data 

attributes for stability control systems 

should be modified because they do not 

clearly indicate the status. We proposed 

three states for stability control: ‘‘on,’’

‘‘off,’’ and ‘‘engaged.’’ ‘‘On’’ and ‘‘off’’

are intended to be status of the vehicle’s 

stability control on/off switch. We 

intend ‘‘engaged’’ to be used when the 

stability control is actively controlling 

the vehicle. Some vehicles do not have 

on/off switches for stability control, and 

the systems remains ‘‘on.’’ In such a 

case, the indicator would read, 

depending on the circumstances, either 

‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘engaged.’’

We also made a modification to the 

‘‘condition or requirement’’ provision 

for most of the data elements in Table 

II. In the NPRM, we used the phrase ‘‘if 

equipped.’’ We proposed the phrase ‘‘if 

equipped’’ because we envisioned 

requiring manufacturers to record the 

data elements in Table II if the vehicle 

is equipped with the relevant safety 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51016 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

33Recording intervals were suggested for the 

proposed delta-V recording element and are 

discussed below. 

34Specifically, Honda recommended changing 

the definition of delta-V, replacing it with the 

following language: 

Delta-V means, for vehicles with only 

longitudinal acceleration measurement capability, 

the change in velocity of the vehicle along the 

longitudinal axis, and for vehicles with 

longitudinal, lateral and/or normal acceleration 

measurement capability, the magnitude and 

direction of the change in velocity of the resultant 

of the longitudinal, lateral and/or normal vehicle 

velocity time-histories, within the time interval 

starting from the time zero and ending 500 ms after 

time zero. 

35Our decision to record delta-V instead of 

acceleration resulted in the addition of five new 

definitions in the regulatory text: (1) Delta-V 

longitudinal, (2) maximum delta-V, longitudinal, (3) 

delta-V, lateral, (4) maximum delta-V lateral, and 

(5) time, maximum delta-V, lateral. 

system or sensing capability. In the final 

rule, the condition or requirement for 

most data elements in Table II will be 

‘‘if recorded.’’ By using ‘‘if recorded’’ we 

mean that manufacturers are required to 

comply with Table II if the data element 

is recorded in non-volatile memory for 

the purpose of subsequent downloading. 

We made this modification so that the 

final rule better reflects current industry 

practices. Some data elements may only 

be recorded in volatile memory (for 

applications such as air bag 

deployment) and not non-volatile 

memory for the purpose of subsequent 

downloading. Our proposal would have 

required manufacturers to record in 

non-volatile memory certain data 

elements, such as acceleration. 

We also believe that the change 

effectuates our goal of providing 

standardization for the data elements 

listed in Table II without substantial 

cost or risking EDR malfunction. We 

agree with the commenters that 

recording these data elements, such as 

acceleration, at the frequency and 

intervals we proposed, would require 

additional memory—adding to the cost 

of implementation. Recording these data 

elements in non-volatile memory would 

have also increased the risk of not 

capturing a complete crash record. A 

more complete discussion of the risks 

associated with recording large crash 

records is discussed below. 

b. The ‘‘Acceleration’’ and ‘‘Delta-V’’

Data Elements 

In the NPRM, we proposed that Table 

I (the minimum data set) include the 

crash severity data elements 

‘‘longitudinal acceleration’’ and 

‘‘maximum delta-V.’’ We selected 

longitudinal acceleration to provide 

crash severity information. Longitudinal 

acceleration is a common data element 

collected in engineering studies and 

crash tests to determine crash severity 

and the shape of the crash pulse in 

frontal and rear crashes. It also provides 

information regarding the maximum 

acceleration level. Therefore, we 

believed that it was appropriate to 

standardize longitudinal acceleration. 

We also proposed to include 

maximum delta-V in the minimum data 

set. We proposed to include maximum 

delta-V in the minimum data set 

because it quantifies the severity of the 

crash in the vehicle’s memory. We had 

proposed that the absolute value of 

maximum delta-V be used, if the vehicle 

experienced a second crash, to 

determine whether the data in the EDR’s 

memory should be replaced with the 

subsequent (or second) crash 

information. We proposed that only 

subsequent crashes with higher 

maximum delta-V must be recorded in 

the vehicle’s memory. 

GM, Daimler Chrysler, Ford, Honda, 

and Toyota specifically requested that 

we replace the longitudinal acceleration 

and lateral acceleration data elements, 

as proposed in the NPRM, with 

longitudinal/lateral delta-V elements. 

All suggested that delta-V is a better 

indicator of crash severity than 

acceleration. They stated that while 

longitudinal/lateral acceleration is 

currently recorded by some 

manufacturers, acceleration data is not 

currently used or needed for safetyrelated crash analysis and 

reconstruction purposes. The data is 

intended for internal use, specifically to 

understand deployment algorithms. 

DaimlerChrysler explained that because 

of this very specific use of acceleration 

data, the time duration recorded was 

never intended to capture a complete 

crash and is usually too volatile for use 

in crash investigation. GM made a 

similar comment, stating that delta-V is 

preferred over acceleration in analyzing 

crash reconstruction because 

acceleration data, even after filtering, is 

typically too sporadic.33 Accordingly, 

the manufacturers stated that accident 

reconstructionists usually use delta-V 

instead of acceleration data. 

Honda also recommended replacing 

the proposed elements for longitudinal, 

lateral, and normal accelerations with 

delta-V, coupled with the angle or 

direction of delta-V, to improve the 

overall understanding of a crash 

event.34

Hyundai and Kia suggested that the 

‘‘lateral acceleration’’ and ‘‘normal 

acceleration’’ data elements should not 

be required even if the vehicle is 

equipped with sensors. Hyundai and 

Kia stated that their tests have shown 

that the data acquired may be 

misleading due to external noise 

transmitted from body structure 

damage. 

After reviewing the comments, we 

have decided to adopt modified 

requirements for the collection and 

standardization of data associated with 

the acceleration and delta-V data 

elements. In the final rule, the 

acceleration data elements 

(longitudinal, lateral, and normal) will 

appear in Table II. In other words, the 

final rule will standardize acceleration 

data elements if manufacturers are 

recording the acceleration data 

elements. In lieu of longitudinal 

acceleration, the final rule focuses on 

recording delta-V as the crash severity 

measure. 

We have modified data elements 

relating to delta-V. In the final rule, 

Table I includes the data element 

‘‘delta-V, longitudinal,’’ ‘‘maximum 

delta-V, longitudinal,’’ and ‘‘time, 

maximum delta-V.’’ Delta-V 

longitudinal will provide for the 

tracking of longitudinal delta-V time 

series data, replacing our proposal to 

record the longitudinal acceleration 

time series. We are also adding a new 

data element to track the time associated 

with the maximum longitudinal deltaV.35 We are focusing on delta-V, 

modifying the final rule to enhance the 

standardization of delta-V data elements 

while also providing for the 

standardization of acceleration data if 

manufacturers record acceleration (now 

in Table II). We believe that delta-V will 

be sufficient to meet our purposes of 

analyzing safety equipment 

performance, aiding in crash 

reconstruction, and enabling ACN, 

while remaining sensitive to costs, the 

risk of data loss associated with writing 

large amounts of data to memory, and 

the problems associated with external 

noise transmitted from body structure 

damage. 

We believe that delta-V is sufficient 

for our objectives. NHTSA has used 

delta-V as a measure of crash severity 

for many years. Delta-V is considered an 

essential part of crash investigation. For 

several decades, NHTSA’s crash 

investigation teams have gathered 

information to estimate delta-V using 

computer programs. The EDR data will 

assist these researchers because they 

will be able to obtain a direct measure 

of delta-V. 

There are significant cost differences 

between delta-V and acceleration, 

notwithstanding that both of these time 

series measurements are typically based 

on accelerometer measurements. In 

current practice, acceleration time series 

data are collected every 2 milliseconds 

for some EDRs while delta-V time series 

data are collected every 10 milliseconds 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51017 

36 ‘‘Performance of Selected Event Data 

Recorders,’’ Aloke Prasad, NHTSA 2001, available 

at http://ww-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-10/EDR/ 

EDR-round-robin-Report.pdf. 

in others. Therefore, comparing these 

two practices, accelerometer data 

generates 5 times the volume of data. If 

we were to require, as proposed, 

longitudinal acceleration, it would be 

necessary to capture and record these 

data, increasing the cost. This increased 

cost is due to the increased size in the 

microprocessor, random access memory 

(RAM) and electrically erasable read 

only memory (EEROM) that would be 

needed to capture and record the 

volume of data produced by the 

longitudinal acceleration data element. 

In addition to cost, we have 

considered the comments that address 

the risk of data loss associated with 

recording a larger file (i.e., more data 

elements or data elements producing 

larger volumes of data, such as 

longitudinal acceleration). In explaining 

the risk of data loss, we first explain 

how the EDR records data. An EDR must 

continuously capture pre-crash data, 

and it must also capture crash data to 

determine if the trigger threshold has 

been met. If we required acceleration 

data, EDRs would be required to capture 

up to 150 milliseconds of data, which 

equates to 76 data points. However, if 

we required delta-V data, EDRs would 

only need to collect about 26 data 

points, which would correspondingly 

reduce the amount of data to capture 

this element. Once the threshold has 

been met or exceeded, the remainder of 

the data set must be captured and then 

recorded. The actual recording 

operation takes place after the crash 

event. Severe crashes often interrupt (or 

destroy) the normal operation of the 

vehicle’s electrical system. Interruption 

of the vehicle’s electrical system may 

compromise the ability of the EDR to 

complete capturing and then record 

data. In the state of current technology, 

there is a much better chance of 

capturing and recording a complete file 

that is smaller rather than larger. 

Accordingly, we believe it is desirable 

to keep the file size (i.e., data elements/ 

volume of data) to a minimum. As the 

state of technology improves and the 

cost of microprocessing and memory 

declines, we foresee the risk of data loss 

to pose less of a concern. 

In deciding to include delta-V in the 

minimum data set (Table I), we also 

considered the location of 

accelerometers. If the accelerometer is 

located in an area that has some small 

local movements (often called ringing) 

as a result of the crash, its acceleration 

profile will not match that of a rigidly 

attached accelerometer, producing 

different maximum deceleration 

measurements that would not be usable 

to make assessments for a vehicle’s 

frontal crash stiffness—one of the 

measurements we were considering 

when we proposed acceleration as a 

required element. Our research 

indicates that, while acceleration 

profiles are not in good agreement 

between the EDR’s accelerometer and a 

reference accelerometer, the delta-V 

measurements in such conditions are 

reliable.36

We have considered the comments 

asking us to include all directions of 

acceleration (x, y, and z) in our 

minimum data set. We believe that such 

information would be informative; 

however, we must balance our need 

against the cost and increased 

complications with expanding the 

minimum data set, as discussed above. 

The final rule does provide 

standardization protocols for the 

acceleration data elements if the 

manufacturer records them (Table II). 

Our decision to move longitudinal 

acceleration from Table I to Table II, as 

discussed above, rests on our belief that 

delta-V is sufficient for our present 

purposes, especially in light of the costs 

and risk of data loss that we face if we 

were to require the recording of 

longitudinal acceleration. We decided to 

retain lateral acceleration as a data 

element to be standardized if recorded 

in recognition that it is a data element 

that can provide useful information for 

crash reconstruction. We also expect 

lateral acceleration to become more 

useful as our proposed upgrade to 

FMVSS No. 214 evolves. Moreover, 

costs and the risk of data loss pose less 

of a concern on those manufacturers 

that have invested in their EDR 

programs to the point where they are 

recording longitudinal and lateral 

acceleration. We expect costs associated 

with merely standardizing the format of 

this data already recorded to be 

minimal. 

c. Multiple-Event Crashes and the 

‘‘Multiple-Event’’ Data Element 

In the NPRM, we proposed that the 

number of crash events be recorded as 

a data element, which is listed in Table 

1 of the NPRM as ‘‘Multi-event, number 

of events (1, 2, 3).’’ The proposed data 

element records the number of crash 

events (up to three events), with a 

maximum of 5 seconds as the proposed 

gap between connected events of a 

crash. Industry commenters disagreed 

with the NPRM’s requirement to record 

up to three events—mostly because they 

believe such a requirement is 

technologically complex. 

According to GM, NHTSA’s proposal 

did not provide a comprehensive and 

objective regulatory requirement with 

respect to multiple-events. GM stated 

that the final rule should not require 

EDRs to record data for multiple-impact 

crashes, but instead should only focus 

on single-impact events. GM also argued 

that a regulatory requirement that 

focuses on recording single events 

would achieve NHTSA’s regulatory 

objectives because most crashes involve 

single events. GM stated its belief that 

the multiple-event recording 

requirement is excessive in part because 

of the amount of buffering and data 

processing required to meet a regulatory 

requirement to record multiple-events 

could compromise the primary purpose 

of the module to properly deploy 

restraint systems and prevent crash 

injuries. GM urged modification of the 

NPRM’s definition of ‘‘event’’ to reflect 

this change. 

Honda commented that the final rule 

should clarify an inconsistency in the 

NPRM related to recording of events in 

multi-event crashes where the air bag 

deploys. Honda stated that the NPRM 

provides that in a situation where the 

time after a ‘‘trigger threshold event’’ is 

less than 500 ms, subsequent ‘‘event’’

data would not be captured and 

recorded in a multi-event crash, even if 

there is air bag deployment (see 

definitions in Sec. 563.5). According to 

Honda, this conflicts with the intent of 

the data capture provisions in Sec. 

563.9(d) of the NPRM. Therefore, Honda 

recommended that the final rule require, 

regardless of the time and/or recording 

status of any ‘‘trigger event’’ as defined 

in Sec. 563.5, that when air bags deploy, 

the ‘‘event’’ data should be recorded. 

Honda’s rationale is that such a 

requirement will help ensure that EDR 

data will provide a better understanding 

of the circumstances of crashes that are 

severe enough to deploy an air bag. 

Nissan commented that the threeevent requirement is unnecessary and 

would be expensive and technologically 

complex to implement. Nissan 

suggested that the elements related to 

the three-event requirement be dropped. 

However, if that requirement is retained, 

Nissan stated that NHTSA would need 

to clarify what constitutes a separate 

event and what combinations of events 

need to be recorded. 

AIAM commented that the recording 

of three events in a multi-event crash is 

not current industry practice. Instead 

that organization suggested that all 

recording stop after an event resulting in 

an air bag deployment. According to 

AIAM, recording three events, as 

specified in the NPRM, would be ‘‘a 

major task’’ and would require 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51018 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

additional memory and development of 

new software algorithms. 

Hyundai and Kia expressed concern 

that the accuracy of acceleration data 

captured after the first event is 

uncertain (if a multi-event crash 

involves two or more events in the same 

direction) because of the technical 

limitations of acceleration sensors 

currently available in the market for air 

bag systems. Based on this uncertainty, 

Hyundai and Kia recommended that we 

not require accurate acceleration data 

from an event that occurs after the air 

bag is deployed if this event occurs in 

the same direction as the previous 

event. Additionally, Hyundai and Kia 

suggested that ‘‘recording time of 

longitudinal acceleration * * * be 

reduced from ‘¥0.1 to 0.5 seconds’ to 

‘¥0.1 to 0.3’ seconds,’’ arguing that this 

change would prevent recording overlap 

with other events and would reduce the 

implementation cost and time. 

Advocates supported the NPRM’s 

proposal to record multi-event crashes, 

capturing up to three events, because of 

the high percentage of multiple-event 

crashes. However, Advocates asked us 

to reconsider whether a five second 

interval from the first triggering event 

would be sufficient to capture all or 

most of multi-event crashes. 

In light of the comments submitted on 

the multiple-event recording data 

element, we have decided to reduce the 

number of events to be recorded in a 

crash from three to two. We also 

decided to change the logic for 

capturing up to 2 events by limiting the 

capture to a single event in the event of 

a crash where an inflatable restraint is 

deployed. As a result, we have modified 

the data element to reflect up to 2 events 

in a crash, dropped the data element 

that recorded the time associated with 

event 3, and retained the data element 

that records the time between event 1 

and event 2. 

We believe that reducing the 

multiple-event recording requirement to 

two events is appropriate considering 

the number of crashes that occur with 

two events or less. We believe the 

revision will also alleviate the 

additional cost and complications 

associated with recording up to 3 

events. The following discussion 

explains our approach and rationale in 

further detail. 

Because we have, in effect, redefined 

an ‘‘event’’ as a change in delta-V that 

equals or exceeds 8 km/h (5 mph) in a 

150 ms period, we needed to update our 

analysis in terms of what events are 

considered to be non-trivial, as would 

justify capture and recording by the EDR 

(i.e., events meeting the trigger 

threshold). In the NPRM, we proposed 

that EDRs must be capable of recording 

up to three events. In light of these 

changes, the agency re-examined the 

issue of multi-event recording in 

developing this final rule. 

NHTSA conducted an analysis using 

2002 and 2003 National Automotive 

Sampling System/Crashworthiness Data 

System (NASS/CDS) data to determine 

the distribution of vehicles in multievent crashes. This analysis provides a 

weighted annual estimate of the number 

of vehicles in crashes involving 

multiple events. The data from these 

two years reveal that approximately 3.2 

million light vehicles in the United 

States were towed each year. Of these 

vehicles, about 2.25 million are 

involved in single-event crashes, and 

0.85 million are involved in multi-event 

crashes. (The remaining 0.1 million had 

no event, suffered damage resulting 

strictly from rollover, or experienced 

some other non-collision event.) 

Our analysis revealed that delta-V 

data are missing for at least one event 

for many of the 0.85 million vehicles 

involved in multi-event crashes. To 

avoid underestimating the frequency of 

vehicles involved in multi-event 

crashes, the analysis accounted for 

unknown delta-V data by adjusting the 

raw weighted estimate by the ratio of 

the number of relevant crashes to the 

number of crashes without any missing 

delta-V data. We assumed that the 

vehicles in multi-event crashes with 

unknown delta-V event data have crash 

severities similar to those in known 

delta-V crash events. Of the 0.85 million 

vehicles in multi-event crashes 

annually, 175,000 vehicles have delta-V 

data for all events, while the remaining 

684,000 vehicles have at least one event 

with missing delta-V data. The total 

annual estimate of vehicles in multievent crashes where at least two of the 

events have non-trivial delta-Vs is 

587,000. The other 2.61 million vehicles 

were involved in crashes that had no 

more than one non-trivial impact. 

We have further estimated the 

distribution of vehicles experiencing 

exactly two non-trivial events, as 

compared to those experiencing three or 

more non-trivial events. (Again, this 

analysis uses the distributions 

established from the vehicles with 

known delta-V data to forecast the 

annual estimate.) Our analysis indicates 

that approximately 580,000 vehicles per 

year are involved in multi-event crashes 

with exactly two non-trivial events. The 

annual estimate of vehicles involved in 

crashes with three or more events is 

6,000. 

In the final rule, we have also made 

a change in the data capture and 

recording strategy, and further allowed 

an exception to the multiple-event 

requirement. For each crash that has an 

event that exceeds the trigger threshold, 

the EDR records data, replacing data 

from the previously recorded event(s), 

up to two events. Typically, up to two 

events will be recorded. In those crashes 

where an air bag is deployed during one 

of the two events of the crash, only the 

event associated with the air bag 

deployment must be recorded. This 

exception is intended to ensure that a 

vehicle’s microprocessors do not 

become overburdened during the 

critical period when the vehicle is 

deciding whether to deploy the air bag. 

(We note that while not required to do 

so, an EDR may capture multi-event 

data during a crash that involves an air 

bag deployment.) 

This exception in the capture/ 

recording strategy may reduce the 

number of multi-event recordings (i.e., 

by the number associated with air bag 

deployments). Our analysis indicates 

that about 58 percent of the time when 

a vehicle is involved in exactly two nontrivial events, the air bags are not 

involved. (The ratio is about the same 

for vehicles experiencing one non-trivial 

event, and it is somewhat lower for 

vehicles experiencing three or more 

non-trivial events.) This estimate is 

based on frontal air bag deployment 

data. Factoring in these vehicles, the 

annual estimate of vehicles involved in 

crashes with two or more non-trivial 

events for which the EDR would need 

to capture and record data is reduced 

under the final rule, taking into account 

the air bag deployment crashes. We 

estimate that annually, about 340,000 

vehicles would be involved in 

recordable non-air bag-deployment 

crashes with two or more non-trivial 

events. 

For these reasons, NHTSA has 

decided to maintain the multi-event 

recording requirement in the final rule, 

but to reduce the number of events from 

three to two. 

Our modification from recording three 

events to two events will significantly 

reduce the amount of memory required, 

thereby addressing commenters 

concerns about memory and the 

multiple-event recording requirement. 

With regard to Hyundai’s and Kia’s 

concerns about the accuracy of 

acceleration and recording time, we 

believe that this issue is no longer 

relevant since we are no longer 

including acceleration in the minimum 

set of required data elements. 

In response to the comments asking 

us to clarify the multiple-event 

requirements, we will briefly discuss 

multiple-event recording. An event is 

defined as an impact or other physical 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51019 

37The commenters did not provide a specific cost 

estimate. 

38These elements include ‘‘speed, vehicle 

indicated,’’ ‘‘engine throttle, % full,’’ and ‘‘service 

brake’’. For these elements, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, 

and Toyota recommended reducing the recording 

interval/time by three seconds from ‘‘(¥) 8 to 0 sec’’

(as proposed in the NPRM) to ‘‘(¥5) to 0 sec.’’ GM 

proposed ‘‘¥2.5 to 0. 5 sec.’’ All four commenters 

recommended reducing the sample rate per second 

from ‘‘2’’ (as proposed in the NPRM) to ‘‘1’’ for 

these data elements. 

occurrence that meets the trigger 

threshold—5 mph (8 kph) delta-V 

within a 0.150-second period. When 

this occurs, the pre-crash data are frozen 

and the crash data are collected from 

time zero to 0.3 seconds. 

If the first event is the deployment of 

an inflatable restraint, these data are 

recorded to memory and the file is 

locked. No further analyses (i.e., looking 

for subsequent triggers) or recording 

occurs. If there is no inflatable restraint 

deployment during the first event, the 

data are captured and stored in a similar 

manner. There are several possibilities 

that could occur after this event 

First, no subsequent event occurs. In 

this case, the first event ends at 300 ms 

after time zero. 

Second, a subsequent event occurs 

without an air bag deployment. In this 

case, the first event ends at 300 ms and 

within 5 seconds of time zero (event 1) 

another event is detected. These data are 

then captured and recorded in a 

separate file, resulting in a two-event 

recording. 

Third, a subsequent event occurs 

where the second trigger is detected 

during the first event, that is, during the 

300 ms data collection period of the first 

event. It is possible that a second impact 

in a multi-impact crash could occur 

while the first event is still being 

captured and recorded. In this case, the 

time between events could be less than 

300 ms. This could occur in cases where 

the first event triggered quickly, such 

that the delta-V threshold (5 mph) was 

exceeded in just a few milliseconds, but 

it is also possible that it could occur 

anytime a subsequent time zero is 

detected before the end of the first 

event. In these cases, the second event 

would start the detection of the second 

trigger. It is the agency’s intent that, in 

these cases, the EDR capture separate 

events and not different portions of a 

single event. Therefore, a method is 

needed to establish the end of the first 

event, so the agency has turned to SAE 

J1698–1, Vehicle Event Data Interface—

Output Data Definition (March 2005), in 

resolving this issue. SAE 1698–1 defines 

the end of an event as the moment at 

which the cumulative delta-V within a 

20 ms time period drops to 0.8 km/h 

(0.5 mph) or less. Thus, in this special 

case, the EDR would not start looking 

for a new trigger threshold until the first 

event has ended. The pre-crash data 

could be the same for both events. 

Fourth, a subsequent event occurs 

with air bag deployment in cases where 

there is a pre-event (meets trigger 

threshold of delta-V greater than 5 mph) 

without an air bag deployment. The file 

associated with the air bag must be 

recorded and locked. The pre-air bag 

event may be recorded, but it is not 

necessary. We do not want the pre-crash 

event to affect the decision-making of 

the microprocessor, which has the 

primary function of analyzing the crash 

and properly deploying the air bags. 

d. Sampling Rates and Recording 

Intervals for Required Data Elements 

The NPRM specified sampling rates 

and recording intervals for data 

elements in order to standardize EDR 

data across the entire spectrum of new 

makes and models of light vehicles. 

NHTSA received comments ranging 

from general concerns about the 

frequency of the rates and intervals to 

detailed comments concerning sampling 

rates and recording intervals. 

GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and 

Toyota commented that the sampling 

rates and durations proposed in the 

NPRM are excessive in that the large 

number of data elements and prolonged 

recording time at a very high frequency 

rate will require memory storage 

capacity 5–10 times greater than the 

current memory capacity provided by 

manufacturers that have installed EDRs. 

These manufacturers further 

commented that recording data in the 

manner specified in the NPRM will 

increase the workload for the processor, 

which would most likely require an 

upgrade for the microprocessor. These 

system upgrades would add to the cost 

of complying with the data 

requirements.37

To address the memory storage 

capacity and microprocessor issues, 

GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Toyota 

recommended deleting several 

elements, as mentioned above, and 

provided alternative recording intervals/ 

times and sample rates for specific data 

elements. In some instances, the 

alternative recording intervals/times 

and sample rates were suggested 

because their field experience shows no 

benefit to an accident reconstructionist 

for the additional recording time.38

Other commenters suggested 

technical changes to the recording 

times/intervals and sample rates for 

other reasons. Hyundai and Kia 

requested that NHTSA perform a cost/ 

benefit analysis for the data elements 

with recording intervals from 150 ms to 

500 ms after an event. They see little 

degradation in the quality of data 

captured with the shorter time period 

while the costs of implementation 

would be considerably higher with the 

500 ms requirement. 

Delphi recommended that NHTSA 

change the recording period for all 

acceleration data from 500 ms after an 

event to only 200 ms after an event. 

Delphi recommended that NHTSA make 

the other related changes necessary to 

reflect this change in recording period 

(e.g., allowing the recorder to retrigger 

after 200 ms instead of after 500 ms). 

Honda recommended changing the 

‘‘vehicle roll angle’’ measurement time 

interval from ‘‘¥1.0 to 6.0 sec’’ to 

‘‘¥1.0 to 0.5 sec.’’ Honda’s rationale is 

that because the proposed 563.9(a) 

specified that the EDR must collect data 

for an event starting at time zero and 

ending 500 ms later, the interval for 

vehicle roll angle must be adjusted to 

the required measurement time of 0.5 

sec of a multi-crash event. Honda also 

stated that the time of air bag 

deployment should be recorded during 

0 to 500 ms to adjust to the acceleration 

measurement time. Honda commented 

that an air bag deployment event cannot 

be recorded separately while the 

acceleration after a trigger event is being 

recorded. 

While many automakers advocated for 

reducing the period of post-crash 

recording, some advocacy groups, 

including Public Citizen, suggested the 

opposite. Public Citizen stated that 

NHTSA should require a longer period 

of post-crash recording once the trigger 

threshold is met. Public Citizen’s 

rationale is that the NPRM’s current 

time limit (0.5 second) would not record 

most data from rollover crashes (which 

typically last several seconds) or 

important post-crash information for 

non-rollover crashes. That organization 

also urged NHTSA to modify the ‘‘safety 

belt status’’ data element to record from 

one second prior to an event to one 

second after an event. Public Citizen 

reasoned that this timing would allow 

crash investigators to determine 

whether the belt failed during a crash or 

whether the occupant intentionally 

unbuckled it after a crash. 

Advocates offered no specific 

technical comments for the EDR 

recording times and sampling rates. 

However, Advocates commented that 

the time durations must be sufficient to 

record the full event and provide 

adequate data, especially in rollover 

crashes. Advocates did acknowledge 

that there may be technological 

impediments or prohibitive costs to 

capturing data for the entire duration of 

full crash events. On the other hand, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51020 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

39Niehoff, Peter, et al., Evaluation of Event Data 

Recorders in Full Systems Crash Tests, ESV Paper 

No. 05–0271 (2005). 

40 Id. 

41This term was changed to ‘‘resolution’’ in the 

final rule. This change is technical, not substantive. 

IIHS indicated manufacturers may 

choose to forego or delay installing EDR 

features because of the significant costs 

that may be involved in recording 

extensive information on rollover angle, 

antilock brake activity, and stability 

control status. IIHS, for example, 

questioned the value of recording 

vehicle roll angle every 100 ms for one 

second before a crash. 

After carefully considering the 

comments, we have modified the 

recording intervals for a number of data 

elements. We made three basic 

modifications: (1) for the delta-V and 

acceleration data elements, we have 

changed the recording time from ¥0.1 

to 500 ms, as proposed, to 0 to 250 ms; 

(2) we changed the recording time from 

¥8.0 to 0 sec, as proposed, to ¥5.0 to 

0 sec for the following data elements: 

‘‘speed, vehicle indicated,’’ ‘‘engine 

throttle, % full,’’ ‘‘service brake, on/off,’’

‘‘engine, rpm,’’ ‘‘ABS activity,’’

‘‘stability control,’’ and ‘‘steering input’; 

(3) we changed the recording time for 

‘‘vehicle roll angle’’ from ¥1.0 to 6 sec, 

as proposed, to ¥1.0 to 0.5 sec. Data 

sample rates in the final rule are 

unchanged from our proposal. 

Regarding the first modification, we 

changed the recording time for the 

delta-V and acceleration elements based 

on the comments. We agree with the 

commenters that recording these data 

elements for 500 ms challenges the 

microprocessing system, raising the risk 

of losing a complete crash record. We 

also believe that a lesser recording time 

would still be sufficient for our 

purposes. Further research conducted 

after our proposal indicates that the 

maximum delta-V will be reported 95% 

percent of the time with a recording 

time of 250 ms.39 Our research also 

reveals that a 150 ms recording duration 

would not be sufficient.40 Based upon 

this information, we believe that a 250 

ms recording time is sufficient for our 

purposes and also reduces the risk of 

losing EDR data because of a system 

malfunction. 

We also reduced the recording time 

for several data elements from ¥8.0 to 

0 seconds to ¥5.0 to 0 seconds. We 

believe that this modification will 

further lessen the amount of data 

written to memory by the EDR and 

reduce the workload for the 

microprocessor. We do not believe that, 

for our purposes, the quality of data will 

significantly be reduced by changing the 

recording time. 

We have considered the comments 

concerning the recording interval for 

‘‘vehicle roll angle.’’ In the NPRM, we 

proposed a recording interval from ¥1.0 

to 6.0 seconds to allow for sufficient 

time to monitor the vehicle’s roll angle 

after the crash event. We reasoned that 

recording up to 6 seconds after the crash 

event could be necessary because in 

cases where a frontal crash occurs, the 

vehicle might continue along some path 

for a second or more before it veers off 

the road and possibly overturns. We 

also considered SAE J1698–1, which 

classifies vehicle roll angle to be a high 

frequency data type with a recording 

interval from ¥300 ms up to 750 ms, 

and IEEE P1616, which specifies that 

‘‘roll rate’’ and ‘‘rollover’’ data elements 

should be collected between ¥8 to 5 

seconds. 

After carefully considering the 

comments concerning ‘‘vehicle roll 

angle,’’ we have modified the final rule 

by removing the specified recording 

interval for ‘‘vehicle roll angle.’’ We 

encourage vehicle manufacturers to use 

SAE J1698–1 and IEEE P1616 as a 

guideline for recording this data 

element. However, we have not 

included a specific recording interval in 

the final rule. We are providing 

flexibility to the automobile 

manufacturers that choose to record this 

data element. If we required a longer 

recording interval, it is possible that the 

costs would discourage automobile 

manufacturers from recording the data 

element. On the other hand, if we 

specified a shorter recording interval, 

we may not be provided with sufficient 

data for many crashes with subsequent 

overturns. 

3. EDR Data Standardization (Format) 

Requirements 

The NPRM included a proposed 

section 563.8, which would require that 

the data elements listed in Tables I and 

II of the NPRM, be recorded in 

‘‘accordance with the range, accuracy, 

precision 41, and filter class specified in 

Table III.’’ GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, 

and Toyota submitted comments stating 

that these specifications (i.e., Table III of 

the NPRM) should not be included in 

the final rule. Other commenters 

suggested that the final rule should 

require data standardization and 

provided suggestions. Finally, GM, 

Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota, Honda, 

and Delphi also made specific 

comments regarding the range, 

accuracy, and precision of acceleration 

data. 

GM believes that these parameters are 

beyond what is currently utilized in 

state-of-the-art EDRs to detect crashes, 

make deployment decisions, and record 

crash severity data, and GM argued that 

such provisions are not necessary to 

achieve the rule’s safety benefits. 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford and Toyota 

provided different reasoning to reach 

the same conclusion as GM. They stated 

that NHTSA intended to use present 

design and performance capabilities of 

existing sensors, rather than to set new 

design and performance requirements. 

However, the current specification in 

paragraph 563.8 would run counter to 

that intent. Thus, DaimlerChrysler, 

Ford, and Toyota recommended that the 

range, accuracy, precision, and filter 

class be determined by the manufacturer 

for optimal restraint system 

performance, rather than EDR 

performance. 

Nissan, Mitsubishi, and ATA 

suggested that the final rule use the SAE 

J1698 resolution attribute instead of 

requiring specific levels of accuracy and 

precision. Nissan submitted a comment 

similar to other automakers, stating that 

the accuracy and precision standards do 

not correspond with current industry 

practice. If these accuracy and precision 

standards are retained, Nissan suggested 

that NHTSA should revise these 

standards to reflect present sensor 

performance specifications of each 

system feeding the EDR. In addition to 

Nissan, Mitsubishi requested that 

NHTSA consider SAE J1698 for the 

common output format for event data. 

Mitsubishi stated that many automobile 

manufacturers participated in creation 

of this standard to specify optimal 

standard output formats. Similarly, the 

ATA commented that it supports the 

use of standards developed by the SAE. 

As for filtering, Nissan questioned the 

rationale for requiring data to be filtered 

in accordance with SAE J211–1 before 

recording, instead of permitting filtering 

after data retrieval. 

Mr. Kast commented that, based on 

his studies of EDR data, some of the data 

elements are not recorded at the 

necessary resolution, accuracy, or 

duration to be of use (i.e., brake lights, 

acceleration, change of speed (computed 

delta-V), speed-vehicle indicated). He 

included a technical discussion of each 

element and the parameters necessary to 

acquire useful data. 

The ATA commented that data 

reliability must be assured. Specifically, 

ATA is concerned that inaccurate or 

erroneous data could result in incorrect 

assessments of the causes of accidents 

and of liability. ATA indicated that 

NHTSA should validate the 

technological ability to meet the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51021 

42Niehoff, Peter, et al., Evaluation of Event Data 

Recorders in Full Systems Crash Tests, ESV Paper 

No. 05–0271 (2005). 

requirements as defined in Table III 

prior to any rulemaking. ATA 

questioned whether the data elements 

would be part of a certification process 

for a specified useful life or warranty 

period and whether service schedules 

would include the EDR. 

Several automobile manufacturers 

stated that the NPRM’s required range 

and precision for accelerometers 

exceeds industry standards and are not 

currently commercially available. GM 

stated that the NPRM’s requirements 

would have the effect of doubling the 

range and that increasing the accuracy 

would add significant costs not 

comprehended in the agency’s cost 

estimates. GM currently utilizes ±50 G 

accelerometers with an 8% accuracy. 

Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Toyota also 

stated that accelerometers, as proposed, 

are not the industry norm, are not 

commercially available, and would 

increase the cost of compliance. 

Honda stated that the accuracy of 

mass-produced accelerometers used in 

motor vehicles can be near ±10%. 

Honda requested that the final rule 

permit use of current G-sensors, which 

have ranges of 30 G to 50 G instead of 

100 G. Honda argued that the NPRM 

had suggested these types of added costs 

were to be avoided. Honda also sought 

clarification as to whether ’’ * * * it is 

correct to say that the accuracy in Table 

III means only the recording error 

between the output value of each sensor 

to the recording unit and the input 

value to the retrieval tools?’’

Delphi made similar comments, 

stating that the NPRM’s range and 

precision parameters for the 

longitudinal and lateral acceleration 

data elements are ‘‘substantially 

different than [those] typically chosen 

for most crash sensing systems today.’’

It stated that it would require 

manufacturers to change existing 

systems, potentially resulting in ‘‘suboptimized system performance,’’ to add 

separate sensors, resulting in increased 

costs, or require manufacturers to 

choose not to install an EDR. Delphi 

recommended that the normal 

acceleration element should not have 

fixed parameters for range, accuracy, 

precision, and sample rate. Instead, 

Delphi suggested that the value of those 

parameters should be reported as 

elements of the data record. 

Delphi commented that the accuracy 

requirements for accelerometers should 

allow a margin for sources of error 

attributable to other factors other than 

the accelerometers (e.g., alignment 

tolerances between the axes of the 

accelerometer and the vehicle). Delphi 

recommended that the accuracy 

requirement for longitudinal and lateral 

acceleration should be no less than +/ 

¥6 percent. Delphi recommended 

minimum limits of +/¥50 G and 1 G be 

placed on the range and precision 

parameters for the longitudinal and 

lateral acceleration data elements, 

respectively and that the available range 

and precision of the sensors be reported 

as data elements. 

After carefully considering the 

comments, we have made a number of 

modifications to the range and accuracy 

requirements for the acceleration data 

elements. For these data elements, we 

proposed a range of ‘‘100 G to +100 G 

and an accuracy of +/¥1 G. In the final 

rule, the range and accuracy for the 

acceleration data elements is ‘‘50 G to 

+50 G with an accuracy of +/¥5 

percent. Based on our research 42 and 

the comments, we believe that the new 

range and accuracy requirements are 

more realistic based upon what we now 

understand to be commercially available 

for vehicle production. Our research 

also leads us to believe that EDRs with 

accelerometers designed to meet these 

requirements will be sufficient to 

analyze safety equipment performance, 

a primary objective of this final rule. 

We have considered the 

recommendation off Mitsubishi and 

ATA that the final rule should use the 

SAE J1698 resolution attribute instead 

of requiring specific levels of accuracy 

and precision. After evaluating SAE 

J1698, we have concluded that the 

values in our proposal are nearly 

identical to or are less stringent than 

those found in SAE J1698. Thus, if an 

original equipment manufacturer were 

to use the SAE J1698 data resolution 

guidelines, they would be in 

compliance with the requirements of 

Table III. 

4. EDR Data Retrieval and Whether To 

Require a Standardized Data Retrieval 

Tool/Universal Interface 

In the NPRM, we proposed 

requirements for EDR data retrieval (i.e., 

post-crash access to stored data). Under 

the NPRM’s regulatory text (Sec. 

563.12), the manufacturer of a motor 

vehicle equipped with an EDR would be 

required to furnish non-proprietary 

technical specifications at a level of 

detail sufficient to permit companies 

that manufacture diagnostic tools to 

develop and build a device capable of 

accessing, retrieving, interpreting, and 

converting the data stored in the EDR. 

The language would have required a 

manufacturer to submit the nonproprietary technical specifications to 

NHTSA. We also requested comments 

on alternative approaches. 

Some commenters asked NHTSA to 

require standardization of data retrieval 

methods, arguing that a standardized 

data retrieval protocol will assist first 

responders and/or reduce cost. Other 

commenters suggested that we consider 

another approach, other than furnishing 

non-proprietary technical specifications 

to NHTSA, to achieve the goal of 

making EDR retrieval tools available to 

crash investigators. 

SISC, ATA, SEMA, Advocates, and 

AAA recommended standardized 

retrieval methods so that emergency and 

first responder personnel can have 

quick and easy access to EDR data. SISC 

requested a standardized interface. SISC 

also believes that that retrieval of crash 

data in rural areas would be facilitated 

by the lower costs and easier access 

resulting from a single interface. For 

example, SISC suggested the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

standards for onboard diagnostics of 

emission system performance. SEMA 

argued for a standardized retrieval 

method but indicated that the data 

should not be vehicle-specific. 

AAA encouraged first responder 

access to data, but through ACN. AAA 

commented that transferal of accurate 

location coordinates, speed estimates, 

air bag deployment and other medically 

relevant information to EMTs should be 

encouraged through ACN. To that end, 

AAA commented that it supports 

NHTSA’s proposal requiring 

manufacturers ‘‘to provide sufficient 

technical detail to companies that 

manufacture commercial crash data 

retrieval systems.’’

Commenters offered other arguments 

for standardizing EDR data retrieval, 

including minimizing the ‘‘tool-up’’

costs and the inconvenience of having 

different types of data retrieval methods 

for each automaker. Three commenters 

referenced the On-Board Diagnostics 

(OBD) systems, requesting or opposing 

similar protocols for the EDR rule. 

PCIAA stated that the regulatory 

objective should be to avoid making 

EDR information access/retrieval more 

expensive and inconvenient than 

necessary. PCIAA commented that the 

failure to require standardization of the 

data retrieval method may preclude or 

diminish the opportunity for broader 

applications of the technology by the 

public and private sector. PCIAA further 

commented that NHTSA should adopt a 

standard in its final rule that minimizes 

new tool-up and licensing costs for the 

service and repair sectors. Because 

dealership service centers and 

independent automotive repair 

businesses have made significant 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51022 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

investments in recent years in scanner 

equipment to download or read data 

from the OBD electronic interface point, 

PCIAA urged NHTSA to consider 

requiring data retrieval through the 

OBD. 

NADA and SEMA made similar 

comments, asking NHTSA to consider 

setting standards for data retrieval 

communications protocols, connectors, 

and tools, similar to those of OBD 

systems. Additionally, SEMA argued 

that data access must include all data 

stored in the EDR, not just NHTSAmandated data. That organization 

argued that the vehicle owner should be 

able to access all data stored in the EDR. 

On the other hand, Injury Sciences is 

opposed to relying on OBD protocols. 

Injury Sciences is opposed to relying on 

the connector as a means of retrieval 

because it asserts that data collection via 

the OBD works only if the electrical 

systems are intact. It argues that NHTSA 

should articulate retrieval requirements 

in the numerous instances when 

electrical systems are compromised and 

the extraction of data can only be 

accomplished from connecting directly 

to the device storing the information. 

Simplifying retrieval methods and 

minimizing costs were two common 

reasons suggested by commenters for 

standardizing EDR data retrieval, with 

some commenters providing technical 

suggestions for EDR data 

standardization. Public Citizen stated 

that NHTSA should standardize 

extraction protocols, technology, and 

interface location to ensure that data can 

be easily and quickly retrieved. Public 

Citizen believes that these steps would 

reduce overall costs. Advocates 

commented that the rule should require 

a uniform architecture for data retrieval. 

Advocates supported standardizing the 

retrieval method, citing higher costs for 

those retrieving data. 

Garthe Associates commented that the 

rule should require a uniform, noncontact retrieval method to rapidly and 

reliably download data. Garthe 

Associates suggested the use of radio 

frequency identification (RFID) or 

infrared (IR) for data retrieval. Garthe 

Associates also suggested specifications 

for the retrieval technology. Garthe 

Associates indicated numerous benefits 

of these technologies, including rapid 

access to crash data by EMS personnel. 

According to Garthe Associates, the 

estimated cost would be about $1/car. 

Mr. Fink stated that the rule should 

require standard software for 

downloading EDR data. He also 

commented that the same software and 

hardware should be able to access data 

from vehicle EDRs and commercial 

vehicle engine control modules. EPIC 

commented that the rule should address 

real-time data collection, which will 

become widely prevalent well before the 

proposed effective date for the rule. 

GM asked NHTSA to alter its proposal 

for data retrieval. In the NPRM, NHTSA 

proposed that each vehicle 

manufacturer must furnish nonproprietary technical specifications at a 

level of detail sufficient to permit 

companies that manufacture diagnostic 

tools to develop and build a device 

capable of accessing, retrieving, 

interpreting, and converting the data 

stored in the EDR. GM recommended 

that we instead allow manufacturers to 

enter into a licensing agreement or 

provide other means for the tool(s) 

required for retrieving the EDR data. GM 

argued that aspects of EDR designs are 

often refined up to, and sometimes after, 

the start of vehicle production. GM 

argues that the provision would (1) 

potentially facilitate tampering with 

EDR data, (2) be impractical to 

accomplish at 90 days before the start of 

production, (3) result in a significant 

paperwork burden, (4) be unnecessary 

to satisfy a limited market for EDR 

download devices, and (5) require 

manufacturers to disclose proprietary 

information. 

Comments provided by 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford and Toyota were 

nearly identical to those of GM, except 

that they recommended that each 

manufacturer be required to certify to 

NHTSA that it has licensed the 

development of a download tool for 

each applicable vehicle. This is in 

contrast to GM, which was also open to 

other means of ensuring that a retrieval 

tool is available. 

SEMA commented that NHTSA 

should require manufacturers to provide 

information necessary for third parties 

to design and develop data access tools 

and should require the manufacturer to 

make the tools available to the public 

for a reasonable price and in a timely 

fashion. 

Ford stated that NHTSA should 

promulgate requirements that effectively 

prohibit tampering with EDRs and EDR 

data, because the value of EDRs is 

predicated upon the integrity of the data 

they contain. 

Honda commented that the NPRM’s 

proposal to require the submission of 

data retrieval information no later than 

90 days prior to the start of production 

of EDR-equipped vehicles is 

problematic. Honda argues that the 

modification or addition of information 

may become necessary near the start of 

production due to the detection of an 

inaccuracy or technical issue. Honda 

argued that under NHTSA’s current 

proposal, a manufacturer would have to 

provide NHTSA with updated 

information and wait 90 days before it 

could start production with the 

modified EDR. Honda would like to be 

able to change the EDR specifications as 

soon as possible, and to produce 

vehicles equipped with the modified 

EDR as soon as possible. Therefore, 

Honda recommended that the final rule 

permit the submission of updated 

retrieval information as soon as it can be 

provided and for production of vehicles 

with the modified EDR to occur as soon 

as possible thereafter. 

ATA commented that specifications 

for the EDR interface should be 

provided to NHTSA but should not be 

part of the public domain. The ATA 

commented that a mandated, standard 

interface would threaten privacy rights. 

However, retrieval of data should be 

brief and should not impede the 

continued utilization, maintenance or 

repair of the subject vehicle. 

More than one commenter 

recommended changing the phrase in 

the ‘‘scope’’ section of the regulatory 

text from ‘‘it [the NPRM] also specifies 

requirements for vehicle manufacturers 

to make publicly available information 

that would enable crash investigators 

and researchers to retrieve data from 

EDRs’ to ‘‘it also specifies requirements 

for vehicle manufacturers to make 

commercially available tools and/or 

methods that enable crash investigators 

and researchers to retrieve data from 

EDRs.’’ This change refers to the above 

comments that automobile 

manufacturers should be only required 

to make retrieval tools commercially 

available instead of having to furnish 

non-proprietary technical specifications 

of the retrieval tools to the agency, as 

proposed in the NPRM. 

We have carefully considered the 

comments and recommended 

alternatives on this issue, and 

determined that an alternative approach 

will better meet the goal of ensuring that 

crash investigators are able to retrieve 

data from EDRs. We believe that 

requiring manufacturers to ensure by 

licensing agreement or other means that 

retrieval tools are commercially 

available will be sufficient for the 

purposes of this final rule. We believe 

that this revised approach will resolve 

concerns about the release of 

proprietary information. It will also 

result in less paperwork costs for the 

manufacturers. 

Under our revised approach, we are 

no longer following the NPRM’s 

proposed requirement for vehicle 

manufacturers to submit information to 

the public docket to allow third parties 

to manufacture a retrieval tool for EDR 

data. Instead, the final rule requires 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51023 

43Specifically, GM recommended replacing the 

proposed language in paragraph 563.10, Crash Test 

Performance and Survivability, with the following 

language: 

The data elements required by sec. 563.7 must be 

recorded so that they can be downloaded in the 

format specified by sec. 563.8; exist at the 

completion of the simulated test, and be retrievable 

by the methodology specified by the vehicle 

manufacturer under sec. 563.12 for not less than 30 

days after the simulated test, and the ‘‘complete 

data recorded’’ element must read ‘‘yes’’ after the 

test. A simulated test for the purposes of this 

subsection consists of laboratory methods to 

provide data bus input representative of FMVSS 

[Nos.] 208 and 214 crash tests to the vehicle data 

bus, so that the EDR recording function can be 

verified. For those data elements not specified by 

FMVSS [Nos.] 208 and 214 (i.e., throttle angle, 

braking input, etc.), manufacturers will furnish 

simulated signals. In addition, manufacturers must 

certify through engineering analysis or other means 

that sufficient energy reserve exists in the subject 

module to ensure that all design-intended 

functions, including the deployment of restraint 

system components and the complete recording of 

EDR data elements as specified by this regulation, 

are fully supported in the event of power loss to the 

module from the vehicle’s battery supply at any 

point following time zero, as defined by this 

regulation. 

manufacturers and/or their licensees to 

make these tools commercially 

available. We expect that these retrieval 

tools will be accessible (i.e., for sale) for 

a reasonable period of time. That is, we 

anticipate that: (1) Retrieval tools will 

be available for several years after the 

vehicle whose EDR data it is designed 

to read has been sold, or (2) the 

capability to read EDR data for such 

vehicles will be integrated into a newer 

version of the tool, thereby making the 

new retrieval tool ‘‘backwardcompatible.’’ (We note that current 

download tools designed for reading 

vehicle emissions-related data or 

engine-control data have been designed 

to be backward-compatible, as has the 

Vetronix Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) tool 

for reading EDR data.) We anticipate 

that the movement toward backwardcompatibility will continue and that 

there will be no issues associated with 

downloading EDR data from older 

vehicles covered by the EDR regulation 

set forth in this final rule. If this trend 

does not continue, the agency will 

consider appropriate action, as 

necessary. 

We are requiring the tool(s) to be 

commercially available not later than 90 

days after the first sale of the motor 

vehicle for purposes other than resale. 

This addresses the timing concerns 

raised by commenters. Given that the 

retrieval tools will be commercially 

available, we do not believe it will be 

difficult to obtain information about 

how to obtain them. 

We have considered the comments 

asking us to require a standardized 

retrieval tool (or standardized retrieval 

software and hardware). In 

consideration of this issue, we assessed 

the comments concerning whether we 

should require a retrieval system similar 

to or utilizing the EPA/OBD protocols 

(68 FR 38427, June 27, 2003). However, 

such a requirement is beyond the scope 

of this rulemaking, since we did not 

propose to require a uniform retrieval 

tool in the NPRM. We do not believe 

that a uniform retrieval tool is necessary 

to achieve the purposes of this 

rulemaking. We believe that intended 

users will be able to access EDR data by 

our requiring manufacturers to ensure 

that retrieval tools are commercially 

available. 

We recognize, however, that there are 

potential benefits to standardizing the 

means of downloading EDR data. This 

could facilitate the future use of EDRs 

by first responders and possibly result 

in lower costs. This is an area that could 

potentially be addressed by voluntary 

organizations such as SAE and IEEE. 

We have considered NADA’s and 

SEMA’s comments that we should 

require access to all data stored in the 

EDR. However, we believe that it would 

not be appropriate to mandate the 

processing and storage for data that we 

currently have determined are not 

necessary for our goals of analyzing the 

performance of safety equipment, 

improving crash reconstruction, and 

enabling ACN. 

Additionally, we did not propose to 

require that vehicle owners have the 

ability of directly accessing EDR data. 

However, the requirement that vehicle 

manufacturers ensure that retrieval tools 

are commercially available should make 

it easier for vehicle owners to indirectly 

access stored EDR data. 

We considered the comments by 

Garthe and Siemens regarding a 

standardized, non-contact retrieval 

method. However, we did not propose 

the implementation of such technology 

in the NPRM, and will not include it in 

this final rule. Requiring automobile 

manufacturers to install a non-contact 

retrieval method is not necessary to 

achieve our stated purposes for this 

rulemaking. 

We have considered ATA’s comments 

regarding access to EDR data, and we 

address this issue in our section on 

‘‘Privacy Issues.’’ With regard to ATA’s 

comments on mandating for brief 

retrieval we presently have not gathered 

sufficient information to mandate the 

brevity with which EDR data can be 

retrieved. 

We have considered the comments 

recommending that we address 

potential tampering with EDRs. We 

currently do not have information that 

leads us to believe that tampering with 

EDRs is a problem that necessitates us 

to develop requirements in this area. We 

may revisit this issue if we find that 

EDR tampering becomes a problem. 

However, we do believe one aspect of 

EDR design will discourage tampering. 

We are requiring that the captured file 

be locked for crashes that involve air 

bags. The locked file will be preserved 

and the file cannot be overwritten. 

5. EDR Survivability and Crash Test 

Performance Requirements 

In the NPRM, we stated that if EDRs 

are to provide useful information, they 

must function properly during a crash, 

and that data must survive the crash. 

Accordingly, we proposed to require 

that EDRs meet specified requirements 

during and after the crash tests in 

FMVSS Nos. 208, 214, and 301. We also 

proposed that the data must be 

retrievable for not less than 30 days after 

the test and without external power. We 

chose not to propose more extensive 

survivability requirements, such as 

requiring EDRs to survive extreme 

crashes, fire, or fluid immersion. 

GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Toyota, 

Nissan, and AIAM argued that in order 

to test for EDR survivability, as 

proposed in the NPRM, vehicles would 

have to be tested with engines running 

and various vehicle systems activated, 

presenting a danger to test personnel. 

Such tests also risk damaging test 

facilities, instrumentation, and 

photographic equipment resulting from 

fuel, oil, and/or battery fluid spillage. 

To solve this perceived problem, GM, 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota 

proposed an alternative approach to 

EDR crash survivability (i.e., a 

simulated laboratory test to verify EDR 

recording function and certification by 

engineering analysis to ensure sufficient 

energy reserve).43 According to the four 

commenters, the NPRM’s current 

dynamic testing requirements for EDRs 

would greatly increase testing costs. 

GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota 

also argued that the crash test 

provisions would not fulfill their 

intended purpose and that the 

provisions are unnecessary since the 

EDR function is typically co-located in 

the restraint control module. 

Nissan stated that the NPRM’s 

proposed regulatory text needs to be 

amended to reflect that engine RPM and 

throttle information will not be 

available in crash tests, which are 

performed without fuel. AIAM 

recommended clarifying the rule to 

indicate that EDR performance does not 

require the engine to be running and 

that, as a result, some data elements 

may not be recorded. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51024 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Toyota 

commented that storing crashed 

vehicles for 30 days following a test to 

ensure retrievability of data is 

impractical and unnecessary. These 

commenters stated that it is 

unreasonable to require data to be 

retrievable without external battery 

supply for 30 days, because current 

EDRs use external battery supplies to 

retrieve post-crash data. According to 

the commenters, the NPRM’s 

requirements would necessitate adding 

a battery to the module, which would 

add significant cost and risk damage to 

the module circuitry due to electrolyte 

leakage. They also argued that this 

requirement for 30-day retrievability is 

unnecessary to meet the safety purposes 

of furnishing additional data to aid in 

crash investigations. 

AIAM commented that the proposed 

regulatory text is not clear as to whether 

data must be retrievable without 

external power for up to 30 days. AIAM 

suggested that the final rule should be 

clarified to require the EDR to store data 

without external power for up to 30 

days but to permit an external power 

source for data retrieval. 

Nissan sought clarification for two 

issues related to survivability: (1) 

Whether an alternate power source 

would be required to ensure that the 

EDR is able to record up to 11 seconds 

of post-crash data; and (2) whether 

sensors would be expected to survive 

crashes to ensure delivery of data to the 

EDR. Mitsubishi stated that the final 

rule should not require data 

survivability in cases where there is a 

cut-off in the power supply or 

destruction of the electronic control 

unit. Mitsubishi argued that it is not 

technically feasible to require data 

recording if power is no longer directly 

supplied to the ECU. 

EPIC and the ATA made general 

comments regarding the survivability of 

EDRs. EPIC commented that EDR 

reliability is essential, ensuring that 

proper functioning of EDR systems 

becomes more critical as third parties 

(e.g., insurance companies and 

prosecutors) are provided access to EDR 

data. EPIC expressed concern that the 

level of survivability called for in the 

NPRM may not be sufficient to ensure 

reliable data. EPIC suggested text for the 

owner’s manual encouraging owners to 

have the EDR inspected after a crash. 

ATA commented that EDRs must 

function properly during and after the 

specified crash tests. 

Several commenters gave specific 

suggestions for crash survivability. 

NADA commented that the rule should 

take into account EDR reparability and 

restoration. Advocates commented that 

the rule should require the EDR to be 

located in the passenger compartment in 

order to increase survivability. Hyundai 

and Kia commented that the rule should 

not require repositioning air bag control 

units to achieve crash survivability 

unless the repositioning would not 

adversely affect performance of the 

systems. 

Public Citizen and NTSB commented 

that the NPRM does not include 

requirements to ensure that the EDR 

will survive fire, fluid immersion, and 

severe crashes. To remedy this 

perceived deficiency, Public Citizen 

suggested that EDRs should be subjected 

to a rollover crash test or that they 

should meet survivability tests similar 

to those for airliner and locomotive 

‘‘black boxes.’’ Public Citizen stated it is 

important that EDR data from severe 

crashes not be lost since such crashes 

may result in fatalities. 

We have carefully considered the 

comments regarding our testing 

requirements, and the commenters’

position that requiring dynamic testing, 

as proposed, would be impracticable. 

After reviewing the comments from the 

manufacturers, we disagree that it is 

impracticable to require basic EDR crash 

survivability. However, we agree that 

certain proposed data elements cannot 

be recorded unless the crash tests are 

conducted with the engine running and 

vehicle systems activated. Those data 

elements are: ‘‘Engine RPM’’ and 

‘‘Engine Throttle % Full.’’ At present, 

FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 tests are not 

conducted with the engine running; 

compliance crash tests are only 

conducted with battery connected and 

vehicle systems activated. It was not our 

intention to propose any testing 

requirements beyond FMVSS Nos. 208, 

214, and 301. Testing with the engine 

running could create hazardous 

conditions for the test engineers. 

Therefore, we agree that ‘‘Engine RPM’’

and ‘‘Engine Throttle % Full’’ cannot be 

recorded in current crash tests. We have 

modified the final rule to account for 

these concerns. 

As a result of our analysis of this 

issue, we have also realized that the 

braking input data element ‘‘service 

brake on/off’’ is not specified in FMVSS 

crash tests. Accordingly, there is no 

practical way to require manufacturers 

to test the survivability of this data 

element in the FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 

tests. Because there is no current way to 

test for these there elements, we have 

modified the final rule accordingly. 

After reviewing the comments, we 

believe that our proposal to require that 

data elements be retrievable for not less 

than 30 days after the test and without 

external power confused some 

commenters. We intended the proposed 

requirement that data be retrievable 

within 30 days without external power 

to simply mean that the EDR data must 

be stored and saved in the system for at 

least 30 days without external power. 

This was not intended to mean that 30 

days after the date of the crash, a crash 

investigator must be able to download 

the stored data with a download tool 

without an external power supply. We 

have modified the rule to clarify our 

original intentions. 

The final rule also modifies the 

number of days we will require EDR 

data to be retrievable after the crash test. 

Manufacturers have indicated that it 

usually takes three to seven days to 

complete the task of crash test data 

analysis and validation. Based upon this 

information, we believe that requiring 

that EDR data be retrievable up to 10 

days better reflects the manufacturer’s 

time frame of crash testing. We agree 

with manufacturers, based on this 

information, that a 30-day requirement 

would require additional vehicle 

storage. Accordingly, we have modified 

the final rule. 

We have also considered the 

comments regarding EDR survivability 

in severe crashes or crashes involving 

fire or fluid immersion; however, we 

have not changed our position on 

requiring EDR survivability in these 

extreme cases. In the NPRM, we stated 

that EDR data from such crashes would 

be useful, but we do not have sufficient 

information to propose survivability 

requirements that would address such 

crashes. We also stated that 

countermeasures that would ensure the 

survivability of EDR data in fires might 

be costly. We have not engaged in 

research to promulgate survivability 

requirements for EDR data in these 

extreme cases. Moreover, we reiterate 

that the most important benefits of EDR 

data comes from enabling ACN and 

composite analysis, and we believe that 

this final rule will allow researchers to 

gather sufficient EDR data of statistical 

significance. We believe that we can 

meet the objectives of this rulemaking 

without requiring EDR survivability in 

extreme crashes. 

The comments of Ford, GM, Daimler 

Chrysler, and Toyota on EDR 

survivability also recommended 

deleting subsections (a)–(c) of the 

proposed regulatory text in Sec. 563.10. 

These commenters proposed an 

alternative testing protocol, as discussed 

above. The manufacturers 

recommended that a simulated test for 

data bus input of FMVSS Nos. 208 and 

214 be performed at room temperature 

and that the EDR data be stored at room 

temperature for 30 days after the tests. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51025 

We believe that testing requirements, as 

proposed by the manufacturers, would 

not be sufficient to meet our basic 

survivability requirements. These basic 

survivability requirements in the final 

rule, which will include the crash tests 

in FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214, are critical 

to verifying the performance and 

accuracy of EDRs because they reflect a 

controlled crash environment. The 

simulated tests recommended by the 

manufacturers for EDR crash 

survivability do not expose the EDR to 

a real crash environment. After carefully 

considering the comments, we believe 

that ensuring basic EDR survivability by 

requiring that EDRs meet specified 

requirements in accordance with 

FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 tests remains 

the best approach to ensure EDR 

survivability. 

We have, however, modified our 

crash test requirements in light of the 

comments we have received and in 

consideration of further information we 

have obtained. We have deleted the test 

associated with FMVSS No. 301. We 

believe that since most EDRs and other 

vehicle electrical systems are located in 

the front part of the vehicle, there is 

little chance that crash forces to the rear 

of the vehicle will affect EDR operation. 

Also, in the FMVSS No. 301 test, no air 

bags are deployed, so elements related 

to air bag deployment, that make up the 

vast majority the data collected by the 

EDR, are not collected. 

Also, we have decided not to require 

EDRs to meet requirements during crash 

tests listed under S13 of § 571.208, as 

we proposed in the NPRM. The tests 

specified in S13 of § 571.208 are 

currently subject to be gradually 

phased-out. After further consideration, 

we believe that the tests in FMVSS Nos. 

208 and 214 will be sufficient to 

determine EDR survivability. 

The agency notes that in some FMVSS 

No. 214 tests (i.e., for vehicles equipped 

with only longitudinal delta-V sensors), 

the longitudinal trigger threshold may 

not be met because there may not be 

sufficient delta-V in that direction. For 

tests conducted pursuant to FMVSS No. 

214, we would not expect the vehicle’s 

EDR to record data unless the 

manufacturer records delta-V, lateral or 

any air bag (frontal, side, other) deploys. 

Our final rule represents tests that we 

believe will be sufficient to ensure basic 

EDR survivability. Furthermore, we 

would like to emphasize that this rule 

is not requiring any additional crash 

tests than what is currently required by 

existing FMVSSs. Tests for EDR crash 

survivability simply piggyback on test 

requirements for existing FMVSSs. 

6. Compliance Date 

In the NPRM, we proposed an 

effective date of September 1, 2008 for 

the EDR regulation. We proposed this 

date with the intention of providing 

manufacturers adequate lead time to 

make design changes to their EDRs as 

part of their regular production cycle, 

minimizing costs. Almost all of the 

commenters on this issue believed that 

the proposed lead time was insufficient 

and/or would result in unnecessarily 

high costs, with most suggesting a 

phase-in beginning in 2008. 

GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and 

Toyota stated if NHTSA issued a final 

rule for EDRs by September 1, 2005, that 

is consistent with their 

recommendations, they could support a 

four year phase-in beginning September 

1, 2008 (10% of vehicle production at 

year 1, 25% at year 2, 60% at year 3, 

and 100% at year 4). GM added that if 

the rule is appreciably different from its 

recommendations, it might need 

additional lead time to achieve 

compliance. GM reasoned that its 

recommended four-year phase-in would 

be an ‘‘aggressive’’ schedule because 

manufacturers would need to redesign, 

revalidate, and retool virtually every 

restraint control module, add greater 

power capability to those modules, and, 

in many cases, redesign the entire 

electrical architecture of the vehicle. 

Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Toyota 

commented that their vehicle electrical/ 

electronic architecture designs, which 

influence EDR feasibility, are presently 

being committed and cannot be readily 

changed for vehicles in model years 

before 2008. Hyundai and Kia 

commented that a four year phase-in 

period after the September 1, 2008 start 

date will be necessary to implement the 

design changes needed to meet the rule 

as proposed. 

Honda and Mitsubishi recommended 

that the effective date of the regulation 

should be no sooner than September 1st 

of the third year after publication of a 

final rule, with a phase-in period 

starting on that date. Honda’s rationale 

is that it would be very difficult for all 

manufacturers to simultaneously 

develop and install compliant EDRs on 

all models by September 1, 2008. 

Subaru commented that the NPRM 

underestimates the time necessary for 

implementation. Because Subaru would 

have to acquire new memory devices, 

develop backup power sources, and 

possibly redesign its air bag system, 

Subaru requested additional lead time 

and a phase-in schedule for recording 

certain data elements. Subaru 

commented that its most state-of-the-art 

EDR technology is still not mature 

enough to meet all the proposed 

requirements. For example, its current 

air bag sensors do not meet the range 

and accuracy requirements. Subaru 

stated that it would probably remove all 

data recording rather than risk 

noncompliance if the rule were 

implemented as proposed. 

NADA commented that the rule 

should adopt a phased-in approach with 

multiple effective dates requiring that 

certain data recording capabilities be 

implemented in the near term, with 

additional data collection capabilities 

considered for the longer term. AIAM 

also commented that additional lead 

time would be necessary to meet the 

accuracy and precision requirements as 

proposed in the NPRM, due to the 

complexity of the required changes. 

AIAM suggested that the regulation 

should take effect with a pared down 

data set no sooner than the September 

1st, three years after publication of the 

final rule and that the regulation should 

allow for a substantial phase-in period. 

If the final rule includes the complete 

set of proposed data elements, a longer 

lead time would be necessary. SISC 

commented we should provide 

sufficient lead time so that 

manufacturers can transition to multiaxis accelerometers (to ensure collection 

of lateral acceleration). 

We have considered the comments 

regarding our proposed effective date. 

Based upon the comments, we have 

decided to require covered vehicles 

manufactured on our after September 1, 

2010 to comply with the requirements 

of this final rule. We believe that a 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 the final rule 

prior to this date. 

7. Privacy Issues 

The NPRM acknowledged that the 

recording of information by EDRs raises 

a number of potential privacy issues. 

These include the question of who owns 

the information that has been recorded, 

the circumstances under which other 

persons may obtain that information, 

and the purposes for which those other 

persons may use that information. 

In the NPRM, we stated that our 

rulemaking would not create any 

privacy problems. We explained that 

NHTSA would first obtain permission 

from the vehicle’s owner before using 

the data. Furthermore, we believe that 

our objectives can be met by using a 

very brief snapshot of EDR data 

surrounding a crash. A broader use of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51026 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

EDR data is not necessary for us to 

gather information or use EDR data. 

Many issues raised by commenters 

concerning privacy arise from the 

misconception that EDRs record data for 

prolonged intervals and personal 

information to study driver behavior. 

We noted in the NPRM that we were not 

proposing to require personal or 

location identification information. We 

also explained that we were proposing 

to standardize EDR data recording for an 

extremely short duration (i.e., a few 

seconds immediately before and after a 

crash). We did not propose to require 

data for prolonged recording intervals 

(i.e., several minutes) or audio/visual 

data that the public may associate with 

event data recorders in other modes of 

transportation, such as flight data 

recorders or locomotive event recorders. 

However, we note that another DOT 

agency, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), is currently 

engaged in rulemaking that would 

facilitate the use a different type of 

device, known as electronic on-board 

recorders (EOBRs), for documenting the 

hours of service of commercial drivers. 

In the NPRM, we expressed our 

sensitivity to privacy concerns, 

especially in relation to how we handle 

EDR data. We explained that NHTSA 

would first obtain a verbal release from 

the vehicle owner before using the data 

and fully comply with federal privacy 

law in its use of the information. Access 

to EDR data would not be affected by 

this rulemaking and would continue to 

be provided in limited situations. 

Furthermore, the design would most 

likely preclude public access to the EDR 

data because the interfaces will likely be 

located in the vehicle’s passenger 

compartment. 

Some commenters argued that public 

safety outweighs any potential privacy 

issue or argued that privacy concerns 

were adequately addressed in the 

NPRM. Several individuals commented 

that the government and others will use 

EDRs to invade privacy. Still others 

identified privacy issues, but took 

differing positions on how to and who 

should address privacy concerns. 

GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and 

Toyota commented that a FMVSS 

requiring EDR installation would permit 

the life-saving benefits of EDRs to be 

properly balanced, at the national level, 

with societal interests involving privacy 

and disclosure. These four commenters 

argued that unless there is Federal 

leadership, individual States will 

continue to regulate in the area of EDR 

privacy (e.g., through disclosure 

requirements). According to these 

automakers, unless this issue is dealt 

with comprehensively at the Federal 

level, the result could be a patchwork of 

State laws that would leave 

manufacturers in the untenable position 

of providing unique EDR systems and 

complying with disclosure language 

provisions on a State-by-State basis. 

EPIC commented that the NPRM 

inadequately protects the privacy of 

vehicle owners. According to EPIC, 

NHTSA has the responsibility to 

provide basic privacy protections and to 

clearly communicate to the public how 

EDR technology will be used. EPIC 

predicted that failure to do this would 

expose the rule to legal and political 

challenges. EPIC suggested that the rule 

should explicitly recognize the vehicle 

owner as the owner of EDR data. 

Moreover, EPIC expressed concern that 

many EDR systems currently record the 

complete VIN, including the serial 

number portion that can be used as a 

personal identifier. 

Several individuals commented on 

privacy and EDRs. Mr. Crutchfield, 

whose comments were representative of 

such commenters, expressed concern 

regarding the collection and use of EDR 

data. He argued that EDRs have no 

safety purpose and will be used to 

increase government revenues from 

fines, to increase rates or deny coverage 

by insurance companies, to justify 

seizure of private property, and to 

discriminate against individuals based 

on race, gender, age, regional origin, and 

socio-economic status. 

Mr. Leggett, an individual, 

commented on the collection and use of 

EDR data. He suggested that EDRs 

should be designed so that vehicle 

owners can remove them and that there 

should be no legal penalty for doing so. 

He also requested that the rule prohibit 

the use of EDR data in criminal and civil 

actions or by insurance companies. Mr. 

Leggett stated that the rule should 

specifically state that insurance 

companies may not require the use of 

EDRs, to ensure that the use of EDRs 

remains voluntary. 

Mr. King, an individual, commented 

that the rule should either provide 

protections for the vehicle owner (the 

presumptive data owner) or should be 

delayed until the passage of legislation 

addressing the issue. Mr. Lashway, 

along with fifty-two other individuals, 

commented that EDRs will be used to 

intrude into the privacy of individuals. 

Several commenters indicated that the 

ability to turn off or disable recording 

would resolve their concerns. Several 

also indicated that requiring written 

consent to acquire the data would be an 

acceptable solution. Some individuals 

commented that the EDR data are not 

reliable enough, thereby creating a 

danger to individuals confronted with 

countering the data in court. 

Commenters also suggested that vehicle 

purchasers should be provided with 

adequate notice about EDRs and EDR 

data at the time of first sale. 

SEMA commented that NHTSA 

should recognize that EDR data is the 

sole property of the vehicle owner. 

According to SEMA, a court order or 

consent of the vehicle owner should be 

required before EDR data may be 

released to insurance companies or 

before vehicle-specific data could be 

released to law enforcement. SEMA 

stated that an owner’s consent could be 

provided prospectively via a form at the 

time of purchase (similar to current 

contracts for OnStar subscriptions). 

Gelco commented that EDR data may 

contain personal information and may 

be easily accessible in the passenger 

compartment. Therefore, Gelco 

requested that the final rule explicitly or 

implicitly limit the access of the owner, 

lessor, or lessee to the data. 

The ATA commented that NHTSA 

should address privacy issues or 

coordinate with other appropriate 

Federal agencies to ensure that such 

issues are addressed. The ATA stated 

that it supports the practice of obtaining 

consent from the vehicle owner and 

commented that the data should be 

exempt from the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA). The ATA also 

expressed concern that a standard 

interface would make access to EDR 

data too easily accessible. 

Canada Safety Council commented 

that ownership of EDR data is unclear 

and that the issue needs to be resolved 

by legislators in the near future. The 

Council also commented that under the 

NPRM, emergency medical service 

personnel would not have easy access to 

crash severity data. 

Wyle Laboratories commented that 

NHTSA should consider certification of 

independent laboratories for EDR data 

management. Wyle’s rationale is that 

such certification would facilitate data 

retrieval, validation, and distribution 

and would help protect the rights of 

each party with an interest in the data 

(e.g., manufacturer, owner, insurance 

carrier, regulator, and law enforcement 

agency). 

The ATA commented that, in contrast 

to what the NPRM states, much of the 

data is proprietary to the motor carrier 

or commercial vehicle operator. The 

ATA predicted that the volume of data 

that will be produced would: (1) 

Increase the likelihood that unskilled or 

untrained personnel would be involved 

in data analysis; (2) result in a 

misunderstanding or incorrect 

interpretation of data; (3) result in a use 

of erroneous data; and (4) lead to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51027 

44See, e.g., Bachman v. General Motors Corp., 

776 N.E.2d 262 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002); Matos v. State, 

No. 4D03–2043 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Mar. 30, 2005); People 

v. Hopkins, No. 2004–0338 (N.Y. Co. Ct., Aug. 30, 

2004); Kevin Schlosser, ‘‘Black Box’’ Evidence, 231 

N.Y. L. J. (Jan. 25, 2005). 

obtaining and using data for purposes 

other than to improve vehicle, driver, 

and highway safety. Accordingly, the 

ATA suggested an appropriate level of 

training should be required to access, 

collect, and protect EDR data, especially 

considering the types and numbers of 

events that might warrant event data 

collection. 

AAA commented that law 

enforcement should have access to the 

data where a crash results in serious 

injury or fatality. AAA also commented 

that rules or laws need to be adopted to 

prohibit access to EDR data without a 

court order or permission from the 

owner. However, AAA did comment 

that EDR data that cannot be tied to a 

specific vehicle should be generally 

available for research purposes. 

National Motorists Association 

commented that it is inappropriate for 

EDR data to be used for criminal 

prosecutions and by insurance 

companies. The Association also 

expressed concern that EDR data is 

unreliable, which exacerbates the 

danger of its use for those purposes. 

Advocates commented that resolution 

of privacy issues should be left to the 

courts. 

Injury Sciences and Public Citizen did 

not view privacy concerns as an 

impediment to the EDR rule. Injury 

Sciences stated that it believes the 

NPRM provides adequate consideration 

and protection for the privacy of the 

individual. While acknowledging the 

importance of ensuring privacy, Public 

Citizen also did not see the EDR rule as 

raising a significant privacy concern. 

Public Citizen’s comments suggested 

that ‘‘public health’’ data provided by 

EDRs outweighs these privacy concerns. 

Public Citizen’s rationale is that NHTSA 

already collects and uses EDR data, so 

the rule does not raise new privacy 

issues. Furthermore, Public Citizen 

stated that the NPRM addresses some 

existing privacy concerns by requiring a 

statement in the owner’s manual to 

inform consumers as to the presence 

and role of the EDR in their vehicle. 

We have reviewed all of the 

comments regarding privacy and EDRs. 

As to comments concerning our planned 

use of EDR data, we hope that our 

continued efforts to educate and inform 

the public will help to correct any 

public misconceptions about the type of 

data that EDRs record and how that 

information is used. 

We stated in the NPRM that we are 

careful to protect privacy in our own 

use of EDR data. We obtain consent 

from the vehicle owner to gain access to 

EDR data. Furthermore, we assure the 

owner that all personally identifiable 

information will be held confidential. In 

handling this information, the agency 

does not make public any information 

contained in these records which has 

the potential to either directly or 

indirectly identify individuals, 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). Therefore, we 

believe that the agency has taken 

adequate steps to ensure individual 

privacy vis-a-vis its use of EDR data. 

We understand that EDRs can 

generate concerns related to how EDR 

data are currently used or will be used 

by entities other than NHTSA. As we 

stated in the NPRM, our role in 

protecting privacy is a limited one. 

While we remain sensitive to the public 

debate about EDRs and the use of EDR 

data, we do not have statutory authority 

to address many privacy issues, which 

are generally matters of State and 

Federal law that we do not administer. 

These privacy issues were not created 

by this rulemaking (e.g., whether the 

vehicle owner owns the EDR data, how 

EDR data can be used/discovered in 

criminal/civil litigation, whether EDR 

data may be obtained by the police). 

EDRs have existed since the 1970s, and 

our rulemaking on EDRs standardizes 

technology that has existed, in some 

cases, for decades. 

Other issues beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking include access to EDR data 

(including by law enforcement) and 

training of individuals to handle EDR 

data. As to Wylie Lab’s comments, we 

did not propose certifying independent 

labs to handle downloaded EDR data for 

NHTSA, and we do not have a present 

need for such analysis. 

As noted earlier, we are not requiring 

or prohibiting on/off switches. Given 

that we are not requiring EDRs, we do 

not believe it would be appropriate to 

prohibit on/off switches. However, such 

switches could reduce the benefits from 

EDRs. Therefore, we believe it would be 

inappropriate to require such switches. 

We considered Mr. Leggett’s comment 

concerning the reliability of EDRs in 

trials and other adjudicatory 

proceedings; however, we note that 

disputes about these issues are most 

appropriately resolved in individualized 

adjudications as needed.44 We are 

presently concerned with the reliability 

of EDR data only as it relates to our 

stated purposes of the analysis of safety 

equipment performance, reconstructing 

crashes, and fostering the development 

of ACN. We believe that the range, 

resolution, and accuracy 

standardization requirements are 

representative of current industry 

standards that are generally accepted in 

the industry, which we discussed in 

further detail above. 

EDR technology continues to evolve, 

and public discussion about EDRs will 

continue. We hope to help address these 

concerns and foster continued 

acceptance of EDRs by requiring 

manufacturers of vehicles equipped 

with EDRs to include a standardized 

statement in the owner’s manual, as 

discussed below. We also hope to 

establish an internet public education 

program to correct perceived public 

misunderstanding related to EDRs. 

8. Owner’s Manual Disclosure 

Statement 

In the NPRM, we proposed to require 

the following disclosure statement to be 

included in the owner’s manual of 

vehicles that have an EDR: 

This vehicle is equipped with an event 

data recorder. In the event of a crash, this 

device records data related to vehicle 

dynamics and safety systems for a short 

period of time, typically 30 seconds or less. 

These data can help provide a better 

understanding of the circumstances in which 

crashes and injuries occur and lead to the 

designing of safer vehicles. This device does 

not collect or store personal information. 

We proposed this disclosure statement 

in an effort to educate the public about 

EDRs, i.e., to inform consumers about 

the circumstances under which EDRs 

record data and the reasons why EDR 

data is collected. 

All commenters on this issue 

generally supported our proposal to 

require an EDR disclosure statement for 

consumers. We received several 

suggestions regarding the text and 

placement of that disclosure statement. 

Some thought that the language in the 

NPRM needed augmentation (or a 

complete rewrite) to address issues such 

as privacy, preemption, and ownership 

of and access to EDR data. We also 

received comments with proposed text 

to address telematic features, such as 

ACN, and specifically OnStar. 

GM expressed support for requiring a 

standardized EDR disclosure statement 

in the owner’s manual. However, GM 

recommended expanding the statement 

to more fully inform consumers (e.g., by 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51028 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

45SEMA suggested the following disclosure 

language: 

This recorded data may not be retrieved or 

downloaded by anyone other than the owner of the 

vehicle except in certain specific circumstances: (1) 

With the consent of the owner; (2) by court order; 

(3) by an authorized person for purposes related to 

improving vehicle safety provided the identity of 

the registered owner or driver is not disclosed and 

the information is of a non-vehicle specific nature; 

or (4) the data is retrieved for the purpose of 

determining the need or facilitation of emergency 

medical response. 

In cases where vehicles are equipped with a 

recording device as part of a subscription service, 

the fact that information may be recorded or 

transmitted must be disclosed in the subscription 

service agreement. 

46EPIC proposed the following additional text for 

the statement in the owner’s manual for vehicles 

that contain ACN or an EDR connected to a 

communications network: 

The event data recorder is connected to a 

communication system capable of automatically 

contacting emergency services when it detects an 

accident. The event data recorder will only initiate 

communication in the event of an accident or if the 

driver uses the manual feature to initiate 

communication with either emergency services or 

the communications provider (e.g., for a service that 

provides driving directions from an operator). 

47EPIC proposed the following additional text for 

the statement in the owner’s manual for vehicles 

that contain ACN or EDR connected to a 

communications network: 

Your consent is required for the data to be 

disclosed to the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration—a federal agency that gathers 

information about traffic accidents to improve 

vehicle and road safety—or any other government 

or private organization, including automotive 

insurance companies. 

EPIC also commented that if a partial VIN is 

included in EDR, the following text should be 

added to the owner’s manual: 

Only the part of your vehicle identification 

number (VIN) that includes information about the 

make and model of your vehicle will be collected 

by the event data recorder. The unique serial 

number portion of the VIN will not be collected. 

48EPIC proposed the following additional text for 

the statement in the owner’s manual: 

If your vehicle has been involved in a serious 

accident or has been subject to flooding or fire, your 

event data recorder may have been damaged. If it 

was involved in one of these situations, please have 

your event data recorder inspected by an authorized 

dealer. 

providing examples of the type of 

information recorded, explanation that 

no recording occurs under normal 

driving conditions, and an explanation 

of download protocols) and to respond 

to issues currently being addressed at 

the State level (e.g., access to EDR data). 

In light of the above, GM also suggested 

that the disclosure statement should 

inform consumers if their vehicle is 

equipped with a telematic system that 

may collect personal and/or vehicle 

information. GM recommended the 

following disclosure statement: 

This vehicle is equipped with an event 

data recorder (EDR). The main purpose of an 

EDR is to record, in certain crash or near 

crash-like situations, such as an air bag 

deployment or hard braking, data that will 

assist in understanding how a vehicle’s 

systems performed. The EDR is designed to 

record data related to vehicle dynamics and 

safety systems for a short period of time, 

typically 30 seconds or less. The EDR in this 

vehicle is designed to record such data as: 

• How various systems in your vehicle 

were operating; 

• Whether or not the driver and passenger 

safety belts where buckled/fastened; 

• How far (if at all) the driver was 

depressing the accelerator and/or brake 

pedal; and, 

• How fast the vehicle was traveling. 

These data can help provide a better 

understanding of the circumstances in which 

crashes and injuries occur. NOTE: EDR data 

are recorded by your vehicle only if a crash 

or near crash situation occurs; no data are 

recorded by the EDR under normal driving 

conditions. 

To read data recorded by an EDR, special 

equipment is required and access to the 

vehicle or the EDR is required. In addition to 

the vehicle manufacturer, other parties, such 

as law enforcement, that have the special 

equipment, can read the information if they 

have access to the vehicle or the EDR. 

[If the vehicle is equipped with telematic 

system(s), the following statement must also 

be included in the owner’s manual.] 

Your vehicle may be equipped with 

onboard telematics that provide safety and 

convenience services such as GPS-based 

navigation or cellular wireless connectivity, 

and your vehicle may collect personal or 

vehicle information to provide such services. 

Please check the service’s subscription 

agreement or manual for information about 

its data collection. 

According to GM, the NPRM’s 

owner’s manual language may not be 

sufficient to obviate or to preempt 

current or future State disclosure 

requirements. GM’s recommended 

disclosure statement also omits 

reference to ‘‘personal information,’’ as 

we proposed in the NPRM, because GM 

believes that phrase is potentially 

ambiguous. 

Comments from DaimlerChrysler, 

Ford, and Toyota were similar to GM’s 

comments, although they differed in 

two areas. Each recommended that the 

EDR rule permit vehicle manufacturers 

to supplement the required language 

with additional information that the 

manufacturers deem appropriate for 

their respective vehicle designs. Each 

also omitted the language GM included 

related to telematic systems. 

SEMA, Advocates, and Mr. Bruce 

Funderberg commented that customers 

should be notified if a vehicle is 

equipped with an EDR prior to 

purchasing the vehicle. SEMA stated 

that vehicle dealers should be required 

to notify consumers about EDRs, 

consistent with State and local laws and 

that subscription services (e.g., OnStar) 

should be required to notify purchasers 

of the types of EDR information that 

may be transmitted and to whom the 

data would be provided.45 According to 

Advocates, NHTSA should require 

dealers to provide a copy of the 

statement to purchasers at the time of 

sale along with a brochure written in 

both English and Spanish. Advocates 

also supported the use of additional 

methods to educate the public about 

EDRs, such as public service 

announcements, agency publications, 

and NHTSA’s Web site. Mr. Funderburg, 

an individual, commented on vehicle 

owners’ lack of knowledge about EDRs, 

suggesting that manufacturers need to 

provide better notice to purchasers 

about EDRs. He also recommended that 

the EDR should be optional equipment 

that purchasers may decline. 

EPIC commented that the notice to 

owners should be more specific about 

the ownership of and access to EDR 

data. EPIC also commented that ACN 

systems present unique privacy issues, 

stating ‘‘for EDRs that use 

communications systems—such as 

OnStar, which uses wireless phone 

networks—the EDR should not initiate 

communication unless an accident is 

detected or if the driver uses a manual 

feature to initiate communications for 

purposes of transmitting driving 

data.’’ 46 EPIC commented: 

Consent of the vehicle owner should be 

required for the disclosure of EDR driving 

data to the NHTSA or any other government 

or commercial organization, including 

automotive insurance companies. Such 

consent should be fully consensual, meaning 

for example that automotive insurance 

contracts should not be conditioned upon 

access to EDR data.47

In addition, EPIC commented that the 

vehicle owner should be instructed to 

have the EDR inspected if the vehicle 

has been involved in an accident, 

flooding, or fire.48

The National Motorists Association, 

Advocates, AAA, and ATA all made 

comments that the proposed disclosure 

statement is inadequate to address an 

array of consumer concerns, and some 

suggested alternative language. PCIAA 

commented that the required, specific 

disclosure statement proposed in the 

NPRM is inadequate because the 

statement could become obsolete 

quickly and because vehicle owners 

rarely refer to or use their owner’s 

manual. Advocates commented that the 

required statement in the owner’s 

manual is necessary but not sufficient to 

educate the public about EDRs and 

address privacy concerns. AAA 

commented that there is insufficient 

consumer notification about access to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51029 

EDR data, stating that manufacturers 

should disclose in the owner’s manual 

whether any outside parties that have 

access to the data and under what 

circumstances the data are shared. ATA 

commented that the statement in the 

owner’s manual should disclose that an 

EDR is present and that the EDR does 

not collect or store personal 

information. The ATA also stated that 

additional public information would be 

desirable. 

After considering the public 

comments, we have decided to adopt a 

more detailed disclosure statement, 

along the lines recommended by GM, 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota. We 

believe that the more detailed statement 

will provide consumers with a fuller 

understanding of the EDR installed in 

their vehicles. 

However, we are not adopting the 

recommended language in GM’s 

comments related to telematic systems, 

because such systems are not directly 

the subject of this rulemaking. We note 

that the comments of DaimlerChrysler, 

Ford, and Toyota did not include 

language related to telematic systems, 

although the balance of their 

recommended disclosure statements 

were virtually identical to that of GM. 

The capabilities of telematic systems 

and the level of integration between 

such systems and the EDR may also vary 

depending upon the given technology. 

For these reasons, we have decided not 

to require language in the specified 

disclosure statement on telematic 

systems. However, vehicle 

manufacturers may include a discussion 

of applicable telematic systems in the 

vehicle owner’s manual, if they choose 

to do so. 

In addition, we note that we are 

permitting vehicle manufacturers to 

supplement the required owner’s 

manual statement on EDRs with 

additional information, if they choose to 

do so. Vehicle manufacturers will have 

specific knowledge about their EDRs, 

and in some situations, vehicle owners 

may benefit from such additional 

information. 

In response to SEMA’s comment that 

vehicle dealers should also be required 

to notify consumers about EDRs and 

Advocates comment requesting an 

additional brochure, we believe that 

such requirements would be largely 

redundant of the information required 

in the owner’s manual, and hence 

unnecessary. 

In addition, we have decided not to 

adopt SEMA’s recommendation for a 

requirement for subscription services, 

such as OnStar, to disclose information 

about the types of data that may be 

transmitted and to whom they may be 

transmitted, for the following reasons. 

First, the regulation of such services is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking, 

and second, consumers are generally 

made aware of such services up-front, 

particularly where they must pay a fee 

for the continuation of service. To the 

extent that consumers are concerned 

about the data gathered or reported by 

these services, they are free to pose such 

questions to the provider. 

Regarding Mr. Funderburg’s 

comments that EDRs should be optional 

equipment that purchasers may decline, 

we note that making EDRs an option 

could add unnecessary production 

costs. Moreover, there are no benefits 

associated with not having an EDR. 

Furthermore, taking such a position 

would run counter to our safety goals of 

securing more and better EDR data and 

enabling ACN. 

For the reasons discussed more fully 

under section IV.B.7 of this document, 

we do not believe that EDRs raise 

meritorious privacy concerns, because 

they do not collect individual identifier 

information. We believe that the 

disclosure statement we have adopted 

provides a clear picture of the types of 

data collected by EDRs and the intended 

uses of that data. 

We have decided not to adopt EPIC’s 

recommended language warning the 

consumer to have the EDR inspected 

after the vehicle is in a crash or is 

subject to fire or flooding. We do not 

believe that such language is necessary, 

because in such cases, the vehicle 

owner will normally have the vehicle 

examined by both an insurance adjuster 

and an automotive repair expert, 

professionals who will diagnose 

resulting problems with all vehicle 

systems, including the EDR. 

In response to commenters who 

argued that our proposed owner’s 

manual disclosure statement is 

inadequate because it is too limited, we 

note that under the final rule, we are 

requiring an expanded disclosure 

statement. We believe that our specified 

owner’s manual disclosure statement 

provides adequate notice as to the 

presence and function of the EDR. 

We have considered the comments 

arguing that our proposed owner’s 

manual statement could become quickly 

obsolete. NHTSA intends to closely 

follow the development of EDR 

technology. If we determine that these 

devices have evolved in such a way as 

to render our disclosure statement 

inadequate, we would consider how to 

amend the required language. In 

addition, as stated above, we are 

permitting vehicle manufacturers to 

augment the required disclosure 

statement with additional information 

based upon the specifics of the EDRs 

installed on the vehicle. For these 

reasons, we believe that the EDR-related 

information provided to consumers will 

be sufficient for most consumers. 

9. Preemption 

GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Toyota, 

AIAM, and NADA recommend that the 

final rule for EDRs should explicitly 

state that it preempts inconsistent State 

and local regulations. GM is concerned 

that without a clear statement of the 

preemptive effect of the final rule, 

manufacturers could be faced with a 

patchwork of State and local 

requirements. AIAM expressed concern 

that the failure to preempt inconsistent 

State and local regulations could result 

in manufacturers being required to 

provide limited, circumscribed, or 

deactivated EDR systems and 

inconsistent disclosure/owner’s manual 

language on a State-by-State basis. 

AIAM argued that the consistency 

across the nation would aid in the 

public acceptance of EDRs and would 

help keep costs down. NADA 

commented that the rule should 

expressly reference the degree to which 

inconsistent State or local regulations 

are preempted. 

We have considered the comments 

concerning the preemption of 

conflicting State regulations and agree 

that a patchwork of State laws is not 

desirable. We expect that general 

principles of preemption law would 

operate so as to displace any conflicting 

State law or regulations. 

It is our view that any State laws or 

regulations that would require or 

prohibit the types of EDRs addressed by 

our regulation, or that would affect their 

design or operation, would create a 

conflict and therefore be preempted. 

Specifically, this would include State 

EDR technical requirements, such as 

ones requiring EDRs in motor vehicles 

(except for State-owned vehicles), 

requiring that EDRs record specific data 

elements, and/or requiring EDRs to meet 

specific technical performance or 

survivability requirements. 

Further, it is our view that any State 

laws or regulations that imposed, for the 

types of EDRs addressed by our 

regulation, additional disclosure 

requirements on vehicle manufacturers 

or dealers would likewise create a 

conflict and therefore be preempted. We 

have devised an appropriate statement 

for the owner’s manual to make the 

operator aware of the presence, 

function, and capabilities of the EDR. 

Inconsistent or additional State 

disclosure requirements would frustrate 

the purposes of our regulation by 

potentially creating confusion or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51030 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

49 653 F.Supp. 1453, 1462 (D. N.J. 1987). 

50Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, New 

Hampshire, New York, Nevada, North Dakota, 

Texas, and Virginia. 

51Arkansas Code, Title 27, Chapter 37, 

Subchapter 1, Section 103. 

52North Dakota Century Code, Title 51 Sales and 

Exchanges, 51–07–28. 

information overload, thereby reducing 

the benefit of the required statement. 

The need to meet different disclosure 

requirements for different States would 

also increase costs, making it less likely 

that manufacturers would provide 

EDRs. 

It is our intent to provide one 

consistent set of requirements, 

including a specified statement in the 

owner’s manual, for vehicle 

manufacturers that choose to install 

EDRs. We believe that this approach 

will enhance the quality of EDR data by 

standardizing the content, format, and 

accuracy of such data, thereby 

increasing its comparability and overall 

usefulness; we further believe that the 

standardized data will be of greater 

benefit for safety equipment analysis 

and crash reconstruction. We also 

believe that this minimum data set 

provides key elements in a standardized 

format that will foster the development 

of ACN and other telematic systems. 

We believe that State laws 

inconsistent with this final rule would 

frustrate the final rule’s purposes. For 

example, additional State requirements 

would increase the costs of EDRs and 

make it less likely that manufacturers 

would voluntarily provide them. 

Additional State requirements could 

also hamper the development of future 

EDRs by pushing their development in 

ways that are not optimal for safety. 

Among other things, given limitations in 

data processing capabilities, 

requirements for additional data 

elements could make EDRs less effective 

in real world crashes in recording the 

data elements NHTSA has determined 

to be most important. (As discussed in 

section IV.B.2 of this notice, we believe 

that recording of additional data 

elements, which are currently of lesser 

value for our stated purposes, would not 

only result in significantly higher costs 

but would also risk overburdening the 

microprocessing and memory 

capabilities of EDRs. This could 

increase data recording times, and it 

could also increase the risk of system 

failure, potentially resulting in the loss 

of all EDR data.) 

In addressing the issue of preemption, 

we note that the effective date for our 

EDR regulation is 60 days after 

publication of this rule, and that the 

compliance date is September 1, 2010. 

It is our view that our regulation has 

preemptive effect between the effective 

date and September 1, 2010, as well as 

after that latter date. In New Jersey State 

Chamber of Commerce v. State of New 

Jersey,49 the Court held that a delay in 

the start-up date of certain provisions of 

the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration’s (OSHA’s) Revised 

Asbestos Standards did not affect the 

effective date of preemption, in that case 

upon publication in the Federal 

Register (holding that preemption arises 

before the regulation becomes operative, 

in cases where an agency provides 

additional time for regulated entities to 

take steps to prepare for compliance). 

The same principle applies here, and we 

have a substantive reason for structuring 

the effective date and compliance date 

in the manner we have done. Once the 

EDR regulation is effective, a conflict 

with an inconsistent State law would 

arise immediately and impact 

achievement of our ultimate objectives 

for compliance in 2010. 

Specifically, we selected this 

compliance date to provide sufficient 

lead time to enable manufacturers to 

incorporate necessary changes as part of 

their routine production schedules. 

Thus, we expect that, in order to meet 

the requirements of our regulation, 

between now and September 1, 2010, 

vehicle manufacturers will be gradually 

redesigning their EDRs, modifying 

vehicle systems and components that 

feed into EDRs, and integrating EDRs 

into numerous models of vehicles. 

Furthermore, a vehicle manufacturer 

may begin complying with the EDR 

regulation once it becomes effective. 

Thus, any State laws or regulations that 

would require or prohibit the types of 

EDRs addressed by our regulation, or 

that would affect their design, or that 

would establish a compliance date 

earlier than September 1, 2010, would 

conflict with and frustrate the purposes 

of our regulation. Among other things, 

such laws or regulations would interfere 

with the process of manufacturers 

gradually redesigning their EDRs, 

modifying related vehicle systems and 

components, and integrating EDRs into 

vehicles in order to meet our 

requirements during that timeframe. 

The agency is aware of ten States that 

have passed laws relating to EDRs in the 

fields preempted by this final rule.50

Most of these States require that the 

vehicle purchaser be notified that the 

motor vehicle is equipped with an EDR. 

Three States, Arkansas, Colorado, and 

North Dakota, require additional 

information. Of those three States, 

Arkansas and North Dakota have the 

broadest disclosure requirements. 

Arkansas requires disclosure of the 

presence of the EDR, the type of EDR, 

and the type of data that is recorded, 

stored, or transmitted.51 North Dakota 

requires disclosure of the presence, 

capacity, and capabilities of the EDR.52

We believe that the statements 

meeting our disclosure requirement in 

the final rule would satisfy even the 

broadest of the existing State disclosure 

requirements. Further, it does not 

appear that any of the existing State 

requirements regarding disclosure 

would conflict with the final rule. 

This rule does not address certain 

other issues generally within the realm 

of State law, such as whether the 

vehicle owner owns the EDR data, how 

EDR data can be used/discovered in 

civil litigation, how EDR data may be 

used in criminal proceedings, whether 

EDR data may be obtained by the police 

without a warrant, whether EDR data 

may be developed into a drivermonitoring tool, and the nature and 

extent that private parties (including 

insurance companies, car rental 

companies, and automobile 

manufacturers) will have or may 

contract for access to EDR data. These 

issues are instead being addressed by 

State legislatures. 

10. Applicability of the EDR Rule to 

Multi-Stage Vehicles 

In the NPRM, we stated that our 

proposed EDR rule would apply to the 

same vehicles that are required by 

statute and by FMVSS No. 208 to be 

equipped with frontal air bags (i.e., 

passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks, and buses with a 

GVWR of 3,855 kg or less and an 

unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg or 

less, except for walk-in van-type trucks 

or vehicles designed to be sold 

exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service). 

This covers most light vehicles, 

including multi-stage vehicles. We 

believe applying this rule to all vehicles 

that are currently subject to FMVSS No. 

208 is appropriate since most EDRs are 

closely associated with frontal air bags 

and all of these vehicles must meet the 

advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208, which will be 

completely phased in by manufacturers 

before compliance with this final rule is 

required. 

Several commenters suggested 

changing our proposal to provide an 

exception for multi-stage vehicles and 

incomplete, intermediate, and final 

stage manufacturers. GM, 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota 

expressed support for either excluding 

incomplete, intermediate, and final 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51031 

stage manufacturers from the 

requirements of the rule by specifically 

excluding these manufacturers in the 

regulatory text or by requiring those 

manufacturers to certify compliance one 

year after the last applicable date for 

manufacturer certification of 

compliance provided under the final 

rule. GM’s point is that the proposed 

EDR rule would result in a significant 

burden on incomplete, intermediate, 

and final stage manufacturers. GM 

argues that the integration of EDR 

functions into a vehicle is a complex 

task requiring advanced 

communications and data processing 

technologies that may be beyond the 

capabilities of many small businesses. 

ATA asserted NHTSA has not 

involved final stage vehicle 

manufacturers or accessory installers in 

an appropriate dialog. ATA encouraged 

NHTSA to conclude that there is no 

possibility that EDR performance could 

be affected during any type of 

completion or conversion or accessory 

installation. On the issue of the effect of 

the EDR requirements on altered 

vehicles, NADA commented that 

NHTSA should ‘‘consider the 

complexities that may be involved for 

light-duty vehicles manufactured in two 

or more stages or which are altered prior 

to first sale.’’

We have considered the comments 

that we provide an exception or 

otherwise delay the effective date of this 

rulemaking for incomplete, 

intermediate, and final stage 

manufacturers (i.e., multi-stage 

vehicles). Since the NPRM was 

published, NHTSA has issued a final 

rule pertaining to certification 

requirements for vehicles built in two or 

more stages and altered vehicles (see 70 

FR 7414 (February 14, 2005)). The 

amendments made in that final rule 

become effective September 1, 2006. In 

relevant part, the multi-stage 

certification final rule amended 49 CFR 

571.8, Effective Date, and it added a 

new subparagraph (b) providing as 

follows: 

(b) Vehicles built in two or more stages 

vehicles and altered vehicles. Unless 

Congress directs or the agency expressly 

determines that this paragraph does not 

apply, the date for manufacturer certification 

of compliance with any standard, or 

amendment to a standard, that is issued on 

or after September 1, 2006 is, insofar as its 

application to intermediate and final-stage 

manufacturers and alterers is concerned, one 

year after the last applicable date for 

manufacturer certification of compliance. 

Nothing in this provision shall be construed 

as prohibiting earlier compliance with the 

standard or amendment or as precluding 

NHTSA from extending a compliance 

effective date for intermediate and final-stage 

manufacturers and alterers by more than one 

year. 

In light of the agency’s policy on 

multi-stage manufacturer certification, 

as expressed in the February 14, 2005 

final rule, we have decided to apply that 

principle to the compliance date for 

final-stage manufacturers and alterers. 

Thus, final-stage manufacturers and 

alterers must comply with this rule for 

vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2011. However, final-stage 

manufacturers and alterers may 

voluntarily certify compliance with the 

standard prior to this date. 

11. Applicability of the EDR Rule to 

Heavy Vehicles and Buses 

In addition to multi-stage vehicles, 

Public Citizen and Advocates 

commented that NHTSA should extend 

the rule’s applicability to include other 

vehicles, such as heavier trucks and 15- 

passenger vans. Public Citizen 

commented that all new vehicles, 

including large trucks, should be 

required to be equipped with EDRs, and 

the organization encouraged NHTSA to 

undertake a separate rulemaking to 

require EDRs in large trucks. Public 

Citizen stated that the benefit realized 

by EDRs is directly proportional to the 

number of vehicles equipped with these 

devices and that full fleet penetration is 

critical to the accuracy and utility of 

EDR data. Public Citizen further 

commented that an EDR requirement for 

large trucks could help improve 

industry practices and driver behavior. 

Similarly, Advocates commented that 

the rule should include 15 passenger 

vans and heavier light trucks because 

those vehicles have relatively high 

rollover rates, high risk of injury to 

multiple occupants, and are exempt 

from other safety regulations (e.g., side 

impact and roof crush resistance). 

While EDR requirements for heavier 

vehicles are outside the scope of this 

rulemaking, we note that many 15- 

passenger vans are within the applicable 

weight range for this final rule, and 

thus, are required to comply with the 

EDR regulation. Further, we note that 

some original equipment manufacturers, 

such as GM, are installing EDRs in their 

medium trucks equipped with air bags. 

As noted in the NPRM, we are not 

addressing in this document what future 

role the agency may take related to the 

continued development and installation 

of EDRs in heavy vehicles. We will 

consider that topic separately, after 

consultation with the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration. As noted 

previously, FMCSA is currently engaged 

in rulemaking that would facilitate the 

use of Electronic On-Board Recorders 

for recording and documenting the 

hours of service of commercial drivers. 

We believe that deferring 

consideration of requirements for EDRs 

installed on heavy trucks is appropriate 

for the following reasons. 

First, it would provide the agency 

with time to build experience in terms 

of standardization of EDR data in light 

vehicles. This experience could then be 

applied to our consideration of heavy 

trucks. 

Second, because the relevant data to 

be gathered by EDRs installed in heavy 

trucks are not identical to that of light 

vehicles, we believe any such 

requirements should come in a separate 

regulation. 

Third, because EDRs in light vehicles 

rely heavily upon sensors and 

diagnostic equipment associated with 

the vehicle’s air bag system, the agency 

must carefully assess the costs, benefits, 

and lead time necessary for EDR 

requirements for heavy trucks, which 

may not have systems with all the 

necessary hardware. We understand that 

heavy truck manufacturers, suppliers, 

and others are engaged in EDR-related 

efforts with SAE, which will result in 

recommended practices for these 

devices. NHTSA is closely monitoring 

these efforts by the SAE working group. 

NHTSA is also closely following 

activities in other governmental 

agencies, including FMCSA and NTSB. 

Finally, separate consideration of EDR 

requirements for heavy trucks will 

expedite promulgation of this final rule 

for EDRs in light vehicles, thereby 

encouraging further positive 

developments based upon standardized 

EDR data. 

12. Automatic Crash Notification and E–

911 

The NPRM stated that the purpose of 

this rulemaking is to help ensure that 

EDRs record, in a readily usable 

manner, data necessary for effective 

crash investigations, analysis of safety 

equipment performance, and automatic 

crash notification systems. It is 

NHTSA’s position that this data will 

help provide a better understanding of 

the circumstances in which crashes and 

injuries occur and will lead to the 

designing of safer vehicles. 

Including ACN as a stated purpose of 

the EDR rule drew comments. 

Commenters recommended additional 

clarifying language or deleting relevant 

portions of the proposed regulatory text 

so that the rule cannot be construed as 

a limitation on manufacturers’ ability to 

offer telematics features, such as ACN. 

GM, Ford, and Toyota recommended 

that the final rule expressly state that it 

does not limit manufacturers’ ability to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51032 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

offer ACN and other telematics features. 

Likewise, PCIAA commented the rule 

should not ‘‘preclude EDRs and similar 

vehicle technology (i.e., intelligent 

vehicle systems-telematics) from being 

fully leveraged by the public and private 

sectors.’’

GM argued that because ACN is not 

being proposed in this rulemaking, the 

language referencing ACN should be 

dropped from the regulatory text. GM 

further argued that the proposed EDR 

rule makes no provision for the 

software, hardware, and infrastructure 

required to make use of ACN-related 

data. DaimlerChrysler made a similar 

comment, adding that ACN 

infrastructure was last estimated to 

cover only 25% of the United States, 

principally in urban areas. 

DaimlerChrysler stated that benefits of 

ACN, other than those related to better 

crash data, are speculative and out-ofscope. 

We acknowledge that this final rule 

does not regulate or require ACN 

systems. Nonetheless, we are retaining 

ACN as a stated reason to require EDR 

data standardization because we believe 

that the final rule would have ancillary 

benefits, such as facilitating ACN 

development. However, our other stated 

purposes fully justify the rule. We 

emphasize that this final rule does not 

limit the ability of manufacturers to 

offer ACN or other telematics devices. 

To reiterate our earlier reasoning, we 

note that the NPRM provides a detailed 

explanation of the relationship between 

EDRs and ACN systems. In addition, the 

ENHANCE 9–1–1 Act of 2004 requires 

the Department of Transportation to 

help coordinate and to speed the 

deployment of Wireless Enhanced 9–1–

1. ACN has the potential for interfacing 

with nation-wide Wireless Enhanced 9–

1–1 deployment by providing 

immediate and accurate crash location 

information to Public Safety Answering 

Points. This will expedite the dispatch 

of emergency services to the crash 

scene, help ensure that EMS personnel 

can locate the crash, and speed the 

provision of lifesaving emergency 

medical services to traffic crash victims. 

The prompt provision of emergency 

medical care to traffic crash victims will 

reduce morbidity and mortality. 

We believe ACN systems have great 

potential for reducing deaths and 

injuries caused by motor vehicle 

accidents. This potential arises from the 

ability of the EDR and ACN, working in 

tandem, to determine (prior to 

responding to the accident scene) the 

likely nature and severity of the injuries, 

the proper allocation of resources to 

respond to those injuries, and the 

location of the crash. We fully expect 

ACN systems to evolve, and our 

rulemaking today, which standardizes 

EDR data, will play a role in realizing 

the safety benefits of ACN. 

13. Definitions 

a. ‘‘Trigger Threshold’’

‘‘Trigger threshold’’ indicates the 

point at which a recordable event is 

recognized by the EDR as suitable for 

further analysis. Our proposal defined 

‘‘trigger threshold’’ as ‘‘a change in 

vehicle velocity, in the longitudinal 

direction for vehicles with only 

longitudinal acceleration measurements 

or in the horizontal plane for vehicles 

with both longitudinal and lateral 

measurements, that equals or exceeds 

0.8 km/h within a 20 ms interval.’’ In 

proposing a value for the EDR trigger 

threshold, we turned to SAE J1698 for 

guidance. 

GM commented that, as proposed, the 

trigger threshold for EDR recording was 

set too low and would result in an 

excessive number of recordings and rerecordings. GM argued that the defined 

threshold would create a risk of memory 

degradation in the electronic control 

module over the life of the vehicle. 

Accordingly, GM, along with 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota, 

recommended revising the definition of 

‘‘trigger threshold’’ to read: ‘‘equals or 

exceeds 5 mph (8 km/h) within a 0.15 

second interval.’’ GM stated that its 

recommended value is consistent with 

the FMVSS bumper standard threshold. 

Similarly, Hyundai, Kia, and Delphi 

stated that the trigger threshold 

specified in the NPRM is set too low 

and would result in data being rewritten 

many times as a result of potholes and 

curb hits. According to the commenters, 

this frequent overwriting of the EDR 

data could result in computer memory 

failure, thereby leaving the EDR 

unavailable in the event of an actual 

crash. Delphi recommended that the 

trigger threshold ‘‘corresponds to an 

average acceleration in excess of 1.5 G 

with a total velocity change of at least 

5 km/hr.’’

As an alternative to the proposed 

language, TRW Automotive suggested 

that the trigger threshold should be 

determined by the air bag system, which 

would notify the other systems to begin 

recording. TRW argued that, currently, 

each individual system records its own 

data so minimal changes would be 

needed to implement the rule. TRW’s 

rationale is that implementation of the 

rule would be less expensive and less 

complex if the rule permitted each 

system to record its own data. 

TRW Automotive also commented 

that there should be ‘‘an acceptable 

tolerance of plus or minus ‘‘one data 

sample period’’ for the data points 

corresponding to ‘‘trigger threshold’’

detection, and a sampling rate tolerance 

of plus or minus three percent for data 

before and after the point of ‘‘trigger 

threshold’’ detection.’’

Advocates stated that it had no 

opinion on the exact specification for 

the trigger threshold but expressed 

concern about setting the trigger at a 

level where recording would occur only 

in the event of a crash. Advocates 

suggested that NHTSA should consider 

the collection of near-miss data in a 

future EDR rulemaking. Advocates also 

questioned whether an electrical or 

engine fire would be a triggering event 

and suggested that NHTSA should 

revise the rule to require the EDR to be 

sensitive to fire-based events. 

After considering these comments, we 

have decided to modify the trigger 

threshold value to 8 km/h within a 150 

ms interval, as requested by the 

commenters, such that the final rule’s 

definition of ‘‘trigger threshold’’ reads: 

‘‘a change in velocity, in the 

longitudinal direction, that equals or 

exceeds 8 km/h within a 150 ms 

interval. For vehicles that record ‘‘deltaV, lateral,’’ trigger threshold means a 

change in vehicle velocity, in either the 

longitudinal or lateral direction that 

equals or exceeds 8 km/h within a 150 

ms interval.’’ We believe that this 

change is appropriate for the following 

reasons. 

While we agree that the threshold 

proposed in the NPRM routinely could 

be exceeded by strong bumper-tobumper contact in a parking lot or 

minor impact with a road obstacle, we 

only required the data to be recorded if 

the cumulative delta-V of the current 

event/crash exceeded the delta-V of the 

previously-recorded data. We do not 

agree that the non-volatile memory 

would have been over-burdened, 

because the delta-V of the event in nonvolatile memory would have rapidly 

reached a sufficient magnitude to 

disregard minor impacts, such as 

bumper-to-bumper events. We believe 

that the revised criterion effectively 

addresses the concerns raised by the 

commenters and reduces the 

complications of decisionmaking 

regarding EDR data recording, while 

maintaining the ability to obtain data 

from most significant crashes (i.e., those 

that are non-trivial). 

We have decided not to adopt TRW’s 

recommendation to tie the trigger 

threshold to air bag deployment. We are 

interested in collecting data on high 

delta-V crashes that do not deploy the 

air bag systems. While air bag systems 

may be operating properly in these 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51033 

53Naturalistic Driving Study; Virginia Tech 

Transportation Institute (VTTI); see http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-13/driverdistraction/PDF/100CarMain.pdf. 

54 GM offered the following definition of ‘‘event 

data recorder’’: 

Event data recorder (EDR) means a device or 

function in a vehicle that captures the data 

elements identified in Table I of this standard for 

up to 5 seconds before time zero and up to 250 ms 

after time zero, and that records the data when it 

has been determined that a crash event has 

occurred so that it can be retrieved after the crash. 

55 Gelco recommended the following definition of 

event data recorder, in order to clarify the scope of 

existing recorders covered by the rule: 

Event data recorder (EDR) means a device or 

function installed in a vehicle as part of its original 

equipment that records any vehicle or occupantbased 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 occupantbased data include any of the data elements listed 

Continued 

cases, we are nonetheless interested in 

these situations, and EDR data captured 

in these situations would be helpful for 

safety equipment analysis. We are also 

interested in collecting data in non-air 

bag deployment crashes. Finally, one of 

our stated reasons for this rulemaking is 

to standardize EDRs. We believe that 

using a set delta-V will better facilitate 

this purpose, whereas using air bag 

triggers could result in different 

thresholds, depending on manufacturer 

deployment strategies and vehicle 

platforms. For these reasons, we have 

decided not to narrow our definition of 

‘‘trigger threshold’’ by tying it to air bag 

deployment. 

Regarding Advocates’’ comments 

recommending capture of near-miss 

data, we have decided that this 

rulemaking should target crash event 

data. While the agency believes valuable 

information for crash avoidance can be 

obtained from studying near-miss data, 

we do not believe that current EDRs are 

best suited for this function. Typically, 

near-miss data are not associated with a 

strong physical occurrence, hence 

increasing the difficulty of defining a 

trigger threshold to key recording. If the 

trigger threshold were set very low, it 

would cause the generation of a large 

volume of files that would need to be 

captured and recorded, or alternatively, 

it would force EDRs to continuously 

record information. Either of these data 

logging processes would make EDRs 

much more expensive. At this time, the 

agency believes these issues can be 

addressed best through our research 

programs, such as the recently 

completed 100-car study, in which 

naturalistic driving characteristics were 

captured.53 Furthermore, near-miss 

situations are not expected to generate 

data applicable to the data elements 

selected as non-trivial events in this 

final rule (e.g., no delta-V or safety 

restraint data). 

As with near-miss data, NHTSA does 

not believe that a trigger related to fire 

would be a cost-effective or practicable 

approach. Non-crash fires are typically 

associated with fuel leaks, and as with 

the near-miss data, current event’driven 

EDRs would not capture much data, 

even if the EDR were triggered. 

b. ‘‘Event’’

In addition to ‘‘trigger threshold,’’ the 

definition of ‘‘event’’ is important to 

understanding what constitutes a 

recordable event for an EDR. In the 

NPRM, we defined ‘‘event’’ as ‘‘a crash 

or other physical occurrence that causes 

the trigger threshold to be met or 

exceeded after the end of the 500 ms 

period for recording data regarding the 

immediately previous event.’’

GM urged modification of the NPRM’s 

definition of ‘‘event,’’ arguing that the 

proposed sampling rates and durations 

are excessive. In order to address these 

concerns, GM provided a revised 

definition of ‘‘event’’ and suggested a 

new definition of ‘‘crash event,’’ which 

also sought to clarify the distinction 

between an event that triggers data 

capture in volatile memory and an event 

that triggers the recording of data in 

non-volatile memory. DaimlerChrysler, 

Ford and Toyota offered nearly identical 

comments to those of GM, except that in 

their definition of ‘‘crash event,’’ the 

longitudinal or lateral trigger threshold 

was 5 mph delta-V in 150 ms, as 

opposed to 5 mph delta-V in 250 ms for 

GM. 

Nissan suggested that the rule should 

permit two alternatives for determining 

the beginning of an event, as provided 

in SAE J1698. SAE J1698 and SAE 

J1698–1 include two methods of 

establishing time zero. One method 

calculates time zero as the occurrence of 

a delta-V of over 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) in 

20 ms. The other method of calculating 

delta-V is to define time zero as the 

point at which the EDR algorithm is 

activated, also known as ‘‘wake-up.’’

The first method was the basis for our 

proposal in this area. GM, Ford, 

DaimlerChrysler, and Toyota 

commented that we should first define 

an ‘‘event’’ and then define ‘‘time zero’’

as the beginning of the event, 

recommending a definition of ‘‘event’’

as a delta-V of over 8 km/h (5 mph) or 

more within 150 ms, instead delta-V of 

over 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) in 20 ms. 

After considering the comments we 

received on this definition, we have 

slightly modified the definition of 

‘‘event’’ in the final rule to read as: ‘‘a 

crash or other physical occurrence that 

causes the trigger threshold to be met or 

exceeded.’’ We believe this change is 

consistent with vehicle manufacturers’

comments. Under the new trigger 

threshold definition, an event is a 

physical occurrence that produces 

sufficient delta-V to exceed the trigger 

threshold. Those occurrences that do 

not meet the threshold are not classified 

as ‘‘events.’’

As discussed below, we have 

modified the way in which the start of 

an event and end of an event are 

determined, consistent with SAE J1698. 

c. ‘‘Event Data Recorder’’

The NPRM defined ‘‘event data 

recorder’’ 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 occupantbased data include any of the data 

elements listed in Table I of this part.’’

GM, Ford and Toyota recommended 

revising the NPRM’s definition of 

‘‘event data recorder’’ in order to narrow 

the definition and make it more 

precise.54 GM argued that its 

recommended definition of ‘‘event 

recorder’’ would prevent confusion and 

possible misinterpretation. 

DaimlerChrysler recommended a similar 

definition for ‘‘event data recorder,’’

except that DaimlerChrysler’s comments 

omitted the specific time references 

indicated by GM. 

Injury Sciences suggested expanding 

the definition of EDR to include 

vehicles that record and store any form 

of speed or collision information, 

without regard to the storage location or 

purpose. According to Injury Sciences, 

this would prevent manufacturers from 

circumventing the rule by not storing or 

using the data in their air bag modules. 

Gelco commented that the definition 

of ‘‘event data recorder’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

the NPRM is narrower than the 

definition in Sec. 563.5 of the proposed 

regulatory text. Gelco argued that the 

definition in Sec. 563.5 would include 

devices that are designed to capture data 

at lower resolution on an ongoing basis 

(as distinguished from devices that 

capture detailed data at the time of a 

crash event.) Gelco stated that such 

devices have valid purposes for both 

owners and users of vehicles, and that 

encompassing these devices within the 

definition of EDR would unnecessarily 

restrain their development. Gelco 

recommended narrowing the scope of 

the rule by adopting a definition for 

‘‘event data recorder’’ that differentiates 

between devices that capture data on an 

ongoing basis and EDRs.55

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51034 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

in Table I of this part. For purposes of this 

definition, devices or functions which may record 

one or more of the data elements listed in Table I 

of this part just prior to or during a crash but which 

are not designed for the purpose of collecting and 

storing motor vehicle crash event data or to record 

vehicle or occupant-based data at the recording 

intervals/times listed in Table I of this part shall not 

be event data recorders. 

56 IEEE–VTS requested incorporation of the 

following sections of their consensus MVEDR, IEEE 

1616 standards: Data Privacy and Security 

Recommendations (Clause 1.3), Definitions (Clause 

3.1), International Use of MVEDR Data (Clause 4.2), 

Emergency Response Community (i.e. Data 

Accessibility & Extraction) (Clause 4.3.4), Electronic 

Equipment Operating Environment (Clause 4.6.1), 

Battery/Reserve Power (Clause 4.6.2), 

Crashworthiness (Clause 4.7), Vehicle Crash Modes 

(Clause 5.1), Minimum Outputs (Clause 6.1), Ability 

to Access Nonvolatile Memory (Clause 6.6.), Use of 

Proprietary Connectors (Clause 6.8), MVEDR 

Telltake (Clause 6.12), Data Capture (Clause 7.7), 

MVEDR Data Dictionary (Clause 8), and 

Recommended Data Elements for Light Vehicles 

Under 4,500 kg (Clause 8.2). 

AAM stated that the definition of 

‘‘event data recorder’’ is too broad in 

that it includes components that are not 

designed primarily for recording crash 

data. For example, some current 

recording systems only record restraint 

system deployment decisions and 

timing data. As a result, AAM argued 

that the rule acts as a mandate forcing 

manufacturers to record a great deal 

more data than their systems are 

currently designed to record. On the 

same issue, the Alliance offered to help 

NHTSA draft a specification that more 

clearly delineates the devices that they 

believe should fall within the ambit of 

the final rule. 

After carefully consideration of the 

comments, we have decided to revise 

the definition of ‘‘event data recorder’’

in order to avoid possible 

misinterpretation. As proposed in the 

NPRM, the definition would have 

covered all devices that record static 

freeze-frame air bag data elements (e.g., 

‘‘frontal air bag warning lamp-on/off’’), 

which commenters argued would have 

inadvertently resulted in a mandatory 

rule. Therefore, we have revised the 

definition to exclude static freeze-frame 

data elements, and by doing so, we 

avoid a mandatory rule. However, our 

revised definition retains critical data 

elements necessary for restraint 

performance evaluation, crash 

reconstruction, and better delta-V 

estimation. 

The final rule defines ‘‘event data 

recorder’’ as ‘‘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.’’

14. Utilization of SAE and IEEE 

Standards 

Under Section 563.4, the NPRM 

proposed to incorporate by reference 

SAE Recommended Practice J211–1, 

March 1995, ‘‘Instrumentation for 

Impact Test—Part 1—Electronic 

Instrumentation’’ (SAE J211–1). GM 

commented that the proposed section 

which would have incorporated SAE 

J211–1 should be deleted, arguing that 

high-speed acceleration data is not 

needed for accident reconstruction 

purposes (delta-V is sufficient) and that 

manufacturers should have the 

flexibility to work with their suppliers 

to match data acquisition hardware and 

software for their systems. On the other 

hand, IEEE–VTS commented that 

NHTSA should include in Section 563.4 

several provisions of its consensus 

Motor Vehicle Electronic Data Recorder 

(MVEDR) standard on a broad range of 

topics.56

We have considered GM’s comment 

that Section 563.4 should be deleted, 

which is premised upon replacement of 

the proposed acceleration data element 

with a delta-V data element. As 

indicated above, manufacturers who 

prefer to record acceleration may 

continue to do so under this final rule. 

However, for those manufacturers that 

prefer to record acceleration data 

instead of delta-V, the acceleration data 

must be filtered and converted to deltaV either during the recording period or 

in the data downloading process. 

Accordingly, the incorporation by 

reference provision, as it appeared in 

the NPRM, remains relevant, and we see 

no reason to remove it. We note that the 

incorporated SAE standard is not 

relevant to manufacturers that decide to 

record delta-V instead of acceleration. 

We have also considered IEEE–VTS’s 

request to incorporate its IEEE 1616 

standard. We note that although 

incorporation by reference is a common 

practice in our rulemaking, we only 

utilize it when we believe the standards 

are appropriate and the standards are 

too complex and onerous to be copied 

into the regulation. In the present case, 

we believe that the provisions of the 

IEEE standard that do not already 

appear in our proposed EDR rulemaking 

are not necessary for data 

standardization. For many of the other 

IEEE provisions that do appear in the 

EDR regulatory text, we do not believe 

that these standards are too complex 

and onerous to be copied into the 

regulation. We believe that many of the 

definitions that we have provided in the 

regulatory text are easy to understand 

and follow. In fact, we believe that it 

would be easier for the reader to 

understand if all the items were 

articulated in the regulation itself, rather 

than by incorporation. Accordingly, we 

have we have decided not to incorporate 

by reference the IEEE 1616 standard, as 

recommended by IEEE–VTS. 

15. Costs 

The NPRM estimated that the added 

cost to manufacturers for implementing 

the requirements of the EDR proposal 

would be $0.50 per vehicle. Several 

commenters (GM, DaimlerChrysler, 

Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru, ATA, and 

AIAM) argued that the NPRM’s cost 

estimate is understated. These 

commenters argued that implementation 

of the proposal would result in 

significantly higher costs related to 

microprocessing and memory upgrades, 

computer reprogramming, the proposed 

range, accuracy, and precision 

requirements, the dynamic testing 

requirements, and air bag sensor 

upgrades. Several commenters provided 

suggestions on ways to reduce costs, 

while others discussed the effect of 

costs on installation of EDRs. 

GM commented that additional 

memory and processing capacity 

required to meet the requirements 

outlined in the NPRM would greatly 

increase the cost of complying with the 

proposed rule. According to GM, 

memory storage capacity would need to 

be expanded beyond that provided for 

current EDRs, and memory cannot be 

added incrementally, as implied in 

NHTSA’s cost estimates (i.e., computer 

memory is normally available in blocks, 

so the next step up from 64K may be 

128K). GM further stated that 

microprocessors available to handle 

larger amounts of memory are usually 

packaged with other system capabilities 

(e.g., increased input/output/pins) that 

would further increase system costs. 

According to GM, this is true for both 

volatile and non-volatile memory. 

We infer from GM’s comments that it 

believes that, if adopted, our proposal 

would entail unavoidable increases in 

processor costs. Specifically, unless the 

processor has sufficient memory 

capacity, the ability of the restraint 

system modules to perform their 

primary task (i.e., deploying the air bags 

in a timely and appropriate manner) 

could be compromised. GM stated that 

two microprocessors may be necessary 

to perform these two functions. 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota 

provided nearly identical comments to 

those of GM on the cost issues 

associated with memory capacity and 

microprocessing. However, they 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51035 

estimated that the NPRM’s proposed 

requirements would necessitate EDR 

storage capacity 5–10 times greater than 

that found in current EDRs and that the 

overall cost per vehicle would be 2–3 

orders of magnitude greater than the 

NPRM’s current estimate (i.e., $50–

$500). DaimlerChrysler and Toyota also 

argued that costs for RAM memory are 

typically more expensive than ROM 

memory. 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota 

commented that the Preliminary 

Regulatory Evaluation’s projection of 

$10,000 per manufacturer for software 

algorithm reprogramming costs is an 

underestimate, although no alternative 

figure was provided. These 

manufacturers asserted that such efforts 

would require engineering-level 

specification development, algorithm 

development, and algorithm validation 

for each vehicle development program. 

GM and AIAM commented that the 

proposed range, accuracy, and precision 

requirements in Table III of the NPRM 

underestimate certain hardware costs. 

For example, GM stated that it currently 

uses ± 50 G accelerometers with an 8% 

accuracy. According to GM, doubling 

the range to ± 100 G and increasing the 

accuracy of those accelerometers would 

add significant costs, which are not 

reflected in the NPRM’s cost estimates. 

GM added that in some cases, the new 

requirements are beyond the state-ofthe-art and may not be feasible. AIAM 

commented that the NPRM specifies 

range, accuracy and precision standards 

in excess of current industry practice. 

According to these commenters, 

significant increases in cost would be 

required to modify systems to meet 

these proposed requirements. 

Another cost issue, raised by GM, 

Ford, and Toyota, related to the 

proposed dynamic testing requirements 

for EDRs, which the commenters 

asserted would greatly increase testing 

costs. For example, GM argued that the 

NPRM would require storage of crashed 

vehicles for 30 days following a test to 

ensure retrievability of data. GM 

commented that such a requirement is 

impractical and unnecessary. Ford and 

Toyota challenged the Preliminary 

Regulatory Evaluation’s assumption that 

the NPRM’s proposed functionality and 

survivability requirements would not 

add any costs because existing EDRs are 

already capable of meeting the proposed 

standard. Ford stated that NHTSA has 

not fully accounted for the crash test 

performance and survivability 

provisions, so additional costs would be 

expected. 

As discussed earlier, GM, 

DaimlerChrysler, and Ford all argued 

that the proposal would significantly 

increase testing costs, because they 

perceived that the testing would need to 

be conducted with running vehicles and 

activated systems. According to GM, the 

NPRM does not account for a significant 

additional cost for reserve or backup 

batteries, which it argued would be 

necessary to comply with the proposed 

requirement that EDR data be retrievable 

without external power for up to 30 

days. 

To remedy the above cost issues, GM 

recommended reducing the number of 

data elements to only those necessary to 

obtain safety-related data suitable for 

crash reconstruction purposes, which 

would presumably allow current EDRs 

to handle these tasks with minimal 

modifications and cost increases. 

Nissan argued that the broad 

definition of an ‘‘event data recorder,’’

as proposed, encompasses many current 

air bag systems that do not record the 

types of information included in Table 

I. According to Nissan’s calculations, 

the NPRM underestimates the cost of 

implementation by a factor of 10. Nissan 

argued that its air bag systems would 

need major architectural changes to 

meet the proposed requirements. Subaru 

made a similar comment, arguing that 

the NPRM underestimates the costs of 

implementation because Subaru might 

be forced to develop an entirely new air 

bag electronic control unit. AIAM 

commented that some EDR systems that 

currently only record air bag 

information may need a complete 

redesign. 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford and Toyota 

stated that sensors that could meet the 

requirements of the NPRM are currently 

considered ‘‘laboratory grade,’’ which 

raises issues related both to cost and 

availability. 

Delphi and Mr. Funderburg expressed 

concern that the cost of implementation 

would deter manufacturers from 

installing EDRs or take away resources 

from NHTSA’s other projects. Delphi 

commented that the cost of 

implementation might vary significantly 

depending on the existing system 

architecture and that because of 

potentially high costs, many 

manufacturers may choose to freeze 

their level of EDR fleet penetration or 

even remove EDRs from certain models. 

Commenters argued that manufacturers 

of vehicles with components that are 

not sufficiently interconnected either 

would remove (or not implement) EDRs 

or would be required to make significant 

changes to the existing electrical 

architecture. Mr. Funderburg expressed 

concern regarding the costs of data 

analysis and the potential for diverting 

NHTSA’s resources away from more 

important projects. 

AAA recommended adoption of a 

smaller data set to help reduce the costs 

of implementation. In contrast, Public 

Citizen asserted that requiring 

installation of EDRs with an 

appropriately large number of data 

elements would be more cost-effective 

for both manufacturers and consumers. 

Public Citizen stated that mandated 

safety features costs consumers as little 

as a quarter of the cost of such features 

in the absence of an agency 

requirement. However, Public Citizen 

did not provide any data to substantiate 

this point. 

We have considered the comments on 

costs, and we have addressed the 

concerns of the commenters in the Final 

Regulatory Evaluation (FRE), which may 

be found under the same docket number 

as this final rule. However, the 

following summarizes the conclusions 

presented in the FEA. 

The total cost for the estimated 9.8 

million vehicles that already have an 

EDR function to comply with the 

regulation will range up to $1.7 million. 

If manufacturers were to provide EDRs 

in all 15.5 million light vehicles, the 

estimated total cost will range up to 

$10.9 million. These potential costs 

include technology costs, administrative 

costs, and compliance costs (although 

the latter two sets of costs are expected 

to be negligible). 

16. Other Issues 

a. Scope and Purpose 

The NPRM’s regulatory text defined 

the purpose and scope of this 

rulemaking as specifying uniform, 

national requirements for vehicles 

equipped with EDRs. Proposed section 

563.1 also required vehicle 

manufacturers to make sufficient 

information publicly available to enable 

crash investigators and researchers to 

retrieve data from EDRs. 

Two vehicle manufacturers 

commented on the proposed scope 

provision. GM commented that the 

NPRM’s statement of scope is overly 

broad and somewhat ambiguous. GM 

argued that the current text of Sec. 563.1 

should be revised to clarify the intended 

scope of the regulation, and GM further 

argued that NHTSA should mandate 

installation of EDRs. Toyota also 

commented that the scope of the rule is 

overly broad and ambiguous and 

recommended language nearly identical 

to GM’s, but without advocating a 

mandatory EDR requirement. 

PCIAA commented that the proposed 

rule focuses too much on restraint 

systems and not enough on systems to 

help the driver avoid collisions. 

We have carefully considered the 

comments pertaining to the scope 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51036 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

provision. We disagree with the 

commenters who stated that our scope 

provision is overbroad and ambiguous. 

To reiterate our earlier explanation, we 

intend to collect EDR data in order to 

gather information related to crash 

reconstruction, to the analysis of safety 

equipment performance, and which may 

be useful for ACN. We believe that the 

regulatory text, when read in its totality 

(including sections on scope, purpose, 

and definitions), provides the public 

with a clear understanding of the 

objectives of our final rule. 

We also disagree with commenters’

recommendations to change the scope of 

the final rule to adopt a mandatory EDR 

requirement. As noted above, we did 

not propose a mandatory requirement 

for vehicle manufacturers to install 

EDRs, and for the reasons previously 

discussed, we have decided not to adopt 

such an approach at this time. We will 

continue to monitor EDR installation, 

and may reconsider this issue in the 

future if circumstances warrant. We 

agree that it is desirable for EDRs to gain 

wider usage and acceptance. 

We have considered PCIAA’s 

comment that the rulemaking should 

acknowledge other uses of EDR data 

(other than those specified in the 

NPRM) so that data elements offer 

sufficient flexibility and the correct 

incentives to avoid discouraging 

innovations that go beyond the goals of 

research and vehicle safety. However, 

we do not believe that this rule will 

deter EDR innovations beyond NHTSA’s 

stated purposes, nor inhibit the ability 

to use EDRs for other purposes. 

Furthermore, we do not believe it is 

appropriate to incorporate into this rule 

other uses of EDR data that we currently 

have no reason to standardize, and 

doing so would require the agency to 

significantly alter the scope and purpose 

of this rule. 

We have, however, revised the 

regulatory text of the scope provision to 

make it consistent with the revisions 

made to the data retrieval section. As 

stated above, in the final rule we have 

revised the portion of our proposal that 

would have required manufacturers 

make publicly available through the 

NHTSA docket such non-proprietary 

information that would permit 

companies that manufacture diagnostic 

tools to develop and build a device 

capable of accessing, retrieving, 

interpreting, and converting data stored 

in the EDR. Consistent with our new 

approach arising out of public 

comments, the scope provision now 

indicates that manufacturers are 

required under this final rule to make 

such information commercially 

available. 

DaimlerChrysler recommended 

adding a time element to the ‘‘purpose’’

section of the regulatory text, stating 

that EDR recording will include ‘‘five 

seconds of specified pre-crash data 

elements and 250 milliseconds of 

specified crash data elements * * *.’’

We have considered DaimlerChrysler’s 

recommendation; however, we generally 

do not provide such specific language in 

the purpose section. Instead, we believe 

that such time element is sufficiently 

and clearly addressed in the regulatory 

text under the ‘‘data capture’’ section. 

b. Technical Changes to Definitions and 

New Definitions 

In response to recommendations 

provided in the comments, we have 

decided to modify several definitions in 

the regulatory text. These modifications 

to the regulatory text provide 

clarification and address technical or 

minor issues. 

‘‘Capture’’

The NPRM defined ‘‘capture’’ as ‘‘the 

process of saving recorded data.’’ GM, 

DaimlerChrysler, and Ford commented 

that this definition should be clarified. 

According to GM, the industry defines 

‘‘capture’’ as the process of buffering 

data in a temporary, volatile storage 

medium where it is continuously 

updated. GM stated that data captured 

in volatile memory is unstable, insofar 

as it is continuously overwritten with 

new data as long as power is supplied 

to the module and is lost the moment 

power is discontinued. We have revised 

the definition of ‘‘capture’’ in light of 

these comments. Accordingly, the final 

rule defines ‘‘capture’’ as ‘‘the process of 

buffering EDR data in a temporary, 

volatile storage medium where it is 

continuously updated at regular time 

intervals.’’ We believe that, as modified, 

the definition of ‘‘capture’’ better 

reflects the industry’s understanding 

and uses of that term. 

‘‘Record’’

The NPRM defined ‘‘record’’ as ‘‘the 

process of storing data into volatile 

memory for later use.’’ GM, 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota 

recommended changing the definition 

of ‘‘record’’ to ‘‘the process of saving 

captured EDR data into a non-volatile 

memory storage device for subsequent 

retrieval.’’ GM stated that the industry 

generally uses the term ‘‘record’’ to 

mean saving captured data into a nonvolatile memory storage device that is 

permanent and stable, even if power is 

lost to the storage module. We agree 

with these comments and have modified 

the definition of the term ‘‘record’’

accordingly. The definition of ‘‘record’’

now reads: ‘‘the process of saving 

captured EDR data into a non-volatile 

device for subsequent retrieval.’’

‘‘Engine Throttle, Percent Full’’ and 

‘‘Service Brake, On and Off’’

The NPRM defined ‘‘engine throttle, 

percent full’’ as ‘‘for vehicles powered 

by internal combustion engines, the 

percent of the engine throttle opening 

compared to the full open position of 

the engine throttle opening, and for 

vehicles not powered by internal 

combustion engines, the percent of 

vehicle accelerator depression 

compared to the fully depressed 

position.’’ The NPRM defined ‘‘service 

brake, on, off’’ as ‘‘the vehicle’s service 

brake is being applied or not being 

applied.’’

GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Toyota, 

and AIAM recommended revising the 

definition of ‘‘engine throttle, percent 

full’’ to clarify that it is the driver input 

that is recorded, rather than the 

electrical or mechanical output that 

resulted. The commenters 

recommended the same type of change 

for the definition of ‘‘service brake, on, 

off.’’ GM’s rationale is that, while the 

input and output signals will generally 

correspond, the former is more relevant 

for safety-related crash analyses. AIAM 

commented that the ‘‘engine throttle, 

percent full’’ data element should be 

redefined to allow the recording of the 

throttle pedal input angle as an 

alternative means of capturing driver 

behavior. 

After consideration of these 

comments, we have determined that 

both definitions should be clarified, as 

suggested, to reflect that it is the driver 

input that is to be recorded. As stated 

above in our discussion regarding the 

‘‘engine RPM’’ data element, we believe 

that driver input is more useful for 

studying crash reconstruction. 

Therefore, the definition of ‘‘engine 

throttle, percent full’’ has been clarified 

and now reads: ‘‘the driver requested 

acceleration as measured by the throttle 

position sensor on the accelerator pedal 

compared to the fully depressed 

position.’’

In the final rule, we have also applied 

this rationale to the definition of 

‘‘service brake, on/off’’ as suggested by 

the public comments, clarifying that it 

is the driver input that is recorded. The 

new definition reads, ‘‘the status of the 

device that is installed in, or connected 

to, the brake pedal system to detect 

whether the pedal was pressed. The 

device can include the brake pedal 

switch or other driver-operated service 

brake control.’’ We believe that this 

definition is more suitable for the stated 

purposes of this rulemaking. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51037 

57Specifically, GM recommended the following 

definition: 

Frontal air bag means any inflatable restraint 

system that requires no action by vehicle occupants 

and is used to meet the applicable frontal crash 

protection requirements of S5.1.2(b) of FMVSS No. 

208. 

‘‘Frontal Air Bag’’

The NPRM defined ‘‘frontal air bag’’

as ‘‘the primary inflatable occupant 

restraint device that is designed to 

deploy in a frontal crash to protect the 

front seat occupants.’’ GM, 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota 

recommended revising the NPRM’s 

definition of ‘‘frontal air bag’’ to make 

it more closely align to the language of 

FMVSS No. 208.57 We agree with the 

commenters and have made this 

modification in the final rule. 

‘‘Ignition Cycle, Crash’’ and ‘‘Ignition 

Cycle, Download’’

In defining the terms ‘‘ignition cycle, 

crash’’ and ‘‘ignition cycle, download,’’

the NPRM used the phrase ‘‘ignition key 

applications.’’ GM, DaimlerChrysler, 

Ford, and Toyota recommended revising 

these definitions to reflect that in the 

future, technological changes may 

obviate the need for a conventional 

ignition key. 

Based upon these comments, we have 

modified the relevant definitions in the 

final rule as follows: ‘‘ignition cycle, 

crash’’ means ‘‘the number of power 

cycles applied to the recording device 

up to and including the time when the 

crash event occurred since the first use 

of the EDR.’’ ‘‘Ignition cycle, download’’

means ‘‘the number of power cycles 

applied to the recording device at the 

time when the data was downloaded 

since the first use of the EDR.’’

‘‘Normal Acceleration’’

The NPRM defined ‘‘normal 

acceleration’’ as ‘‘the component of the 

vector acceleration of a point in the 

vehicle in the z-direction. The normal 

acceleration is positive in a downward 

direction.’’ Delphi recommended that 

NHTSA provide greater specificity in 

the definition of 0 G normal 

acceleration, because the term 0 G is 

used inconsistently within the industry 

(e.g., 0 G is sometimes normalized for 

the ‘‘1 G bias due to gravity). We agree 

with Delphi’s comments and have 

revised the definition. Since the 

acceleration data are used to compute 

velocity and motion relative to the other 

vehicle/barrier in our laboratory tests, 0 

G vertical is defined with the gravity 

term not removed, hence 0 G vertical 

would be observed when the vertical 

accelerometer is as rest. 

‘‘Pretensioner’’

The NPRM defined ‘‘pretensioner’’ as 

‘‘a device that is activated by a vehicle’s 

crash sensing system and removes slack 

from a vehicle belt system.’’ GM, 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota 

requested a minor change in the 

definition of the term ‘‘pretensioner’’ to 

clarify that vehicle belt system means 

vehicle safety belt system. We agree that 

the addition of the word ‘‘safety’’

provides clarity, and we have revised 

the term. 

‘‘Safety Belt Status’’

The NPRM defined ‘‘safety belt 

status’’ as ‘‘an occupant’s safety belt is 

buckled or not buckled.’’ GM, 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota 

recommended modifying the term to 

read: ‘‘safety belt status means the 

feedback, as recorded by the EDR 

function, from the safety system that is 

used to determine that the safety belt is 

fastened.’’ The commenters’ rationale is 

that some safety belt technologies 

provide safety belt status feedback 

without evaluation of the buckle status. 

We agree and have modified the 

definition in accordance with the 

recommendations. The definitions for 

both driver and right front passenger 

‘‘safety belt status’’ now read: ‘‘the 

feedback from the safety system that is 

used to determine that an occupant’s 

safety belt is fastened or not fastened.’’

‘‘Side Air Bag’’ and ‘‘Side Curtain/Tube 

Air Bag’’

The NPRM defined ‘‘side air bag’’ as 

‘‘any inflatable occupant restraint 

device that is mounted to the seat or 

side structure of the vehicle interior at 

or below the window sill, and that is 

designed to deploy and protect the 

occupants in a side impact crash.’’ The 

proposal defined ‘‘side curtain/tube air 

bag’’ as ‘‘any inflatable occupant 

restraint device that is mounted to the 

side structure of the vehicle interior 

above the window sill, and that is 

designed to deploy and protect the 

occupants in a side impact crash or 

rollover.’’

GM and DaimlerChrysler 

recommended revising the NPRM’s 

definitions of ‘‘side air bag’’ and ‘‘side 

curtain/tube air bag’’ to simplify the 

locational references in these 

definitions. GM’s recommended 

definitions would also drop the phrase 

‘‘and that is designed to deploy and 

protect the occupants in a side impact 

crash,’’ as it appears in the NPRM. GM’s 

rationale is that the agency’s current 

definitions do not fully comprehend 

evolving technology that may permit 

side curtains in a variety of locations. 

Ford provided a nearly identical 

comment. However, Ford recommended 

adding that these devices are ‘‘designed 

to help mitigate occupant injury and/or 

ejection.’’

After considering the comments by 

GM, DaimlerChrysler, and Ford, we 

have modified our definitions of ‘‘side 

air bag’’ and ‘‘side curtain/tube air bag’’

to provide more flexibility for evolving 

technology. However, we do believe that 

consumers need to know the conditions 

under which side air bags will deploy. 

To that end, we have deleted the 

specific mounting location references 

(i.e., above the window sill) from the 

definitions and accepted Ford’s 

recommendation, but retained the 

language that the devices will deploy 

‘‘in a side impact’’ crash event. 

In the final rule, the definition of 

‘‘side air bag’’ now reads as ‘‘any 

inflatable occupant restraint device that 

is mounted to the seat or side structure 

of the vehicle interior, and that is 

designed to deploy in a side impact 

crash to help mitigate occupant injury 

and/or ejection.’’ The final rule defines 

‘‘side curtain/tube air bag’’ as ‘‘any 

inflatable occupant restraint device that 

is mounted to the side structure of the 

vehicle interior, and that is designed to 

deploy in a side impact crash or rollover 

and to help mitigate occupant injury 

and/or ejection.’’

‘‘Speed, Vehicle Indicated’’

In the NPRM, we proposed to define 

‘‘speed, vehicle indicated’’ as ‘‘the 

speed indicated on the vehicle’s 

speedometer.’’ GM, DaimlerChrysler, 

Ford, and Toyota recommended what 

they believe is a more technically 

correct definition of the ‘‘speed, vehicle 

indicated,’’ to read as follows: ‘‘the 

speed indicated by a manufacturerdesignated subsystem designed to 

indicate the vehicle’s ground travel 

speed during vehicle operation, as 

recorded by the EDR.’’ GM’s rationale is 

that there are no data on the vehicle 

databus that indicate the speed actually 

being displayed to the driver via the 

speedometer. According to GM, vehicle 

speed should be reported as determined 

by the appropriate vehicle subsystem(s), 

which vary among manufacturers (e.g., 

wheel speed sensors, driveline shaft 

sensors, differential sensors, or 

transmission sensors). Nissan 

commented that manufacturers should 

have the option of recording the vehicle 

speed from a variety of systems (e.g., 

ABS) instead of the instrument panel 

speed. AIAM provided a similar 

comment. 

We agree that the definition of 

‘‘speed, vehicle indicated’’ in the final 

rule should be modified in a matter 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51038 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

consistent with these recommendations. 

Accordingly, the definition of ‘‘speed, 

vehicle indicated’’ now reads: ‘‘the 

speed indicated by a manufacturerdesignated subsystem designed to 

indicate the vehicle’s ground travel 

speed during vehicle operation.’’

Timing Issues 

GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and 

Toyota recommended revising the 

NPRM’s definitions for ‘‘time to 

deploy,’’ ‘‘time to first stage,’’ and ‘‘time 

to nth stage’’ to clarify that the elapsed 

time is in milliseconds and that those 

times are to be measured from time zero 

to the time of the air bag deployment 

command (rather than to the time of air 

bag inflation or air bag firing). 

We agree with the commenters’

suggestions for clarification of the time 

data elements for the air bag systems 

and other commanded systems, such as 

pretensioners. Accordingly, we have 

revised all relevant definitions, 

including ‘‘time to deploy, 

pretensioner,’’ to reflect that these 

elements are measured to the time of the 

deployment command signal that is 

generated within the control unit. 

‘‘Time Zero’’ and ‘‘End of Event Time’’

The NPRM defined ‘‘time zero’’ as the 

‘‘beginning of the first 20 ms interval in 

which the trigger threshold is met 

during an event.’’ GM, DaimlerChrysler, 

Ford, and Toyota recommended revising 

the definition for ‘‘time zero’’ in order 

to better standardize a common 

reference point for all EDR data, thereby 

facilitating comparisons among data sets 

from different vehicles. GM proposed 

new language for that definition. 

We have reviewed this definition of 

‘‘time zero’’ in conjunction with our 

newly adopted definition of ‘‘trigger 

threshold,’’ and we have taken into 

account the different types of EDR 

system algorithms (e.g., ones with 

continuously running algorithms, as 

opposed to ones using an algorithm 

‘‘wake-up’’ strategy). As discussed 

above, we have revised the definition of 

‘‘trigger threshold’’ to mean ‘‘8 km/h 

within a 150 ms interval.’’ This defines 

the crash level that will be captured and 

recorded in the EDR. We acknowledge 

that OEMs use different operational 

strategies to sense a crash in their air 

bag control modules. For example, some 

manufacturers use a continuously 

operating system that is always on and 

sensing acceleration and analyzing the 

signal(s) to make an air bag command 

decision. In contrast, other 

manufacturers utilize systems that 

‘‘wake up’’ when a crash occurs. 

We agree that ‘‘time zero’’ needs to be 

defined so as to ensure that each of 

these strategies will result in similar 

crash data time reporting in the EDR 

record. To accomplish this, NHTSA has 

turned to SAE J1698 for additional 

guidance. SAE, working with members 

from companies that employ the two 

operating strategies, has worked out 

these issues, so we have adopted this 

approach, as discussed below. 

For systems that wake up, ‘‘time zero’’

is defined as the time the control 

algorithm is activated. When a crash 

occurs, the system wakes up almost 

instantly, and it starts processing the 

crash data. Thus, ‘‘time zero’’ is 

established at or very close to the time 

the crash starts. ‘‘Wake up’’ is typically 

determined by the accelerometer 

exceeding a pre-defined threshold for a 

pre-defined time period, such as 2 G for 

1 ms. The data are captured, and if the 

delta-V exceeds 8 km/h with in a 150 

ms interval, the data are recorded. 

For systems with continuously 

running algorithms, the ‘‘time zero’’

determination is more complicated. In 

such systems, the CPU (central 

processing unit) is continuously 

processing accelerometer data in order 

to make air bag command decisions. 

SAE decided, for these systems, that the 

start of an event should be defined by 

a change in velocity. Thus, we have 

adopted the same strategy. For systems 

that run continuously, we are defining 

‘‘time zero’’ as the first time point where 

a longitudinal, cumulative delta-V of 

over 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) is reached 

within a 20 ms time period. Since 

acceleration rises quickly in a major 

crash, we anticipate that this strategy 

should work well, resulting in time 

zeros in good agreement with the ‘‘wake 

up’’ systems. Thus, for continuouslyrunning systems, the CPU monitors the 

vehicle’s deceleration signal(s). If the 

total delta-V exceeds 8.0 km/h within a 

150 ms period, an event is detected and 

the captured data are recorded. 

In lateral crashes, the longitudinal 

trigger may not be triggered, and in 

those cases, there would be no data 

recorded in the EDR. For vehicles that 

choose to record ‘‘delta-V, lateral,’’ we 

are extending the trigger threshold and 

time zero definition so that in those 

vehicles, EDR data is recorded. We have 

turned to SAE J1698–1 for the time zero 

definition, selecting time zero as the 

first point in the interval where the 

cumulative, lateral delta-V equals or 

exceeds 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) within a 5 

ms interval. 

To facilitate detection of a second 

event in a multi-event crash, we have 

added a new definition to automate the 

detection of the end of an event. After 

once again consulting SAE J1698–1, we 

have defined ‘‘end of event time’’ as the 

moment when the cumulative delta-V 

within a 20 ms time period becomes 0.8 

km/h (0.5 mph) or less. This will allow 

manufacturers to develop 

methodologies to automatically detect 

the end of one event and start 

processing data to determine whether a 

second event occurs during the crash. 

New Definitions 

In reviewing our proposal and after 

making substantive modifications to 

other parts of the final rule based on the 

public comments, we have added a few 

terms to the ‘‘definitions’’ section of the 

final rule’s regulatory text for 

clarification purposes. The new terms 

are: (1) ‘‘Air bag warning lamp status,’’

(2) ‘‘deployment time, frontal air bag,’’

(3) ‘‘volatile memory buffer,’’ (4) ‘‘nonvolatile memory buffer,’’ (5) ‘‘occupant 

position classification,’’ and (6) ‘‘end of 

event time.’’ We also modified the 

definitions of ‘‘occupant size 

classification’’ and ‘‘seat position’’ to 

make them more flexible to account for 

developing technologies. 

c. Data Capture 

In the NPRM, we explained that once 

the trigger threshold has been met or 

exceeded, EDR data elements are 

captured in volatile memory. We further 

explained that the EDR continues to 

capture data for an additional 500 ms. 

The EDR makes a determination (by 

comparing the absolute values of the 

maximum delta-V captured with the 

data previously recorded) of whether to 

discard the EDR data captured in favor 

of a previously recorded data set. We 

proposed a specific hierarchy on how an 

EDR should capture and record data, 

including data in cases of multi-event 

crashes. This strategy was proposed so 

that the EDR would retain crash data 

associated with the higher maximum 

delta-V. We developed this method in 

the NPRM to ensure that the EDR does 

not overwrite an important file 

generated in a crash with a minor 

subsequent event, such as loading a 

crashed car on a wrecker. 

GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and 

Toyota recommended that NHSTA 

delete subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (f) from 

our proposed regulatory text section on 

‘‘data capture.’’ Those commenters also 

suggested that NHSTA replace 

subparagraphs (d) and (e), which 

discuss data capture requirements 

associated with air bag deployment, 

with the following language: ‘‘a nondeployment event will overwrite a nondeployment event of lesser magnitude; 

deployment events must always 

overwrite non-deployment events; 

deployment events must lock the record 

and may not be overwritten.’’

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51039 

In their comments, GM, 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota 

stated that the NPRM’s proposed data 

capture requirements are complex and 

ambiguous and do not accurately 

recognize the system architecture in 

restraint control modules. These four 

commenters also stated that the 

requirements do not take into 

consideration the limitations of current 

technology. They argued that it is 

impractical to simultaneously buffer 

data, to write data to nonvolatile 

memory, to analyze the severity of the 

impact(s), and to appropriately deploy 

restraints. 

To reduce the risk of data loss, Nissan 

stated that an air bag deployment event 

should be written to memory and 

locked, and that all further recording 

should cease. Advocates questioned 

whether a 5-second window is sufficient 

to capture an entire post-crash event. 

We have carefully considered the 

comments and have developed a 

modified strategy for making the data 

recording decision, based on the 

comments submitted by the 

manufacturers. We have adopted these 

commenters’ suggestions for a new 

definition of ‘‘trigger threshold,’’ and 

based upon this new definition, all 

crashes captured and recorded will be of 

significant magnitude to be of interest. 

Thus, the comparative process, as 

proposed, is no longer necessary. 

We also have decided that collecting 

data associated with an air bag event is 

our priority. Accordingly, in the final 

rule, we have specified a new capture 

logic that accounts for the comments, 

simplifies the EDR design, reduces the 

risk of losing important air bag data, and 

will likely reduce costs. 

The new methodology requires the 

EDR to make two analytical decisions: 

one is related to an air bag crash event, 

and the other is related to a non-air bag 

crash event. In those crash events where 

an air bag is commanded to deploy, the 

EDR must delete the data previously 

recorded, and the data from the air bag 

crash event must be captured, recorded, 

and locked to prevent overwriting. In 

those crashes where air bags are not 

commanded to deploy, our logic deletes 

all previously captured and recorded 

data, for up to two events. If the second 

event turns out to be air bag related, the 

logic calls for a revision to the first 

condition. In these cases, collection of 

the first non-air bag related event is not 

necessary but is acceptable. We believe 

that this logic provides relief in terms of 

the need for increased CPU power that 

might otherwise be necessary for an 

EDR to analyze and capture EDR data 

during a time when it might complicate 

safety-critical decisions. 

d. Miscellaneous Comments 

SEMA urged NHTSA to refrain from 

adopting requirements that could ossify 

EDR technology, commenting that the 

EDR system needs to be adaptable to 

allow for future developments and to 

work with other vehicle systems. 

According to SEMA, the system should 

not preclude servicing, repair, or 

installation of aftermarket equipment. 

SEMA argued that manufacturers, 

distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle 

repair businesses must have sufficient 

information about the EDR system to be 

able to service the vehicle and to install 

new or replacement products without 

fear of taking vehicle equipment out of 

compliance with any applicable Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard. In 

response to SEMA’s comments, we do 

not believe that these systems will be 

any more complicated than current air 

bag control systems. EDRs are not new 

to the marketplace, and no specific 

problem of this sort has been brought to 

NHTSA’s attention. 

NADA, EPIC, and Honda commented 

on the need for public education and 

awareness of EDRs. NADA stated that 

NHTSA should work to educate the 

public ‘‘that, in addition to the potential 

for improving vehicle and roadway 

safety design effectiveness, 

appropriately utilized EDR system 

information will help to reduce 

accident-related investigation, medical, 

legal, and insurance costs.’’ EPIC 

commented that currently, public 

awareness and understanding of EDRs is 

insufficient. EPIC urged NHTSA to 

create an EDR information website to 

educate the public about EDR 

technology and its uses, what types of 

users may gain access to EDR 

information and the circumstances 

under which it may be accessed, and 

privacy rights associated with EDR data. 

NHTSA agrees with the value of a 

Web site dedicated to EDRs. About five 

years ago, NHTSA launched the first 

EDR Web site. The Web site contained 

historical information about EDR 

technology, research material regarding 

EDR uses, patent information and other 

resources. In late 2004, NHTSA 

commenced work on a full update to the 

Web site, which was completed in early 

2005. It is accessible through NHTSA’s 

Web site, http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov, and 

at http://safercar.gov. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this final rule, we are posting a 

consumer-directed set of ‘‘questions and 

answers’’ on our Web site to provide 

educational materials and to raise 

awareness about the presence and 

functionality of EDRs. Topics include 

common privacy concerns and 

NHTSA’s protocol for requesting EDR 

data during crash investigations. In 

developing these materials, we will 

consider NADA’s recommendations to 

inform consumers that EDRs could lead 

to reductions in accident-related 

investigation, medical, legal, and 

insurance costs. Our plan is to keep 

these materials up to date, by adding 

new information as unique questions 

from the public are raised. 

Honda suggested that NHTSA should 

conduct an EDR workshop so that all 

critical issues can be explored and 

discussed, thereby facilitating issuance 

of a final rule in an expedient fashion 

and minimizing the need for petitions 

for reconsideration. Although an EDR 

workshop, as recommended by Honda, 

would offer a means of gaining 

additional EDR-related input, we have 

decided that such a meeting is not 

necessary before proceeding to a final 

rule. 

ATA stated that NHTSA should 

conduct additional human factors 

research to determine the effect of driver 

and employee awareness of EDRs on the 

number and severity of crashes. ATA’s 

comment pertains to research, not to 

this final rule. We note, however, that 

we believe the issue of EDR awareness 

as related to the number and severity of 

crashes may be a valuable area for future 

research. 

Public Citizen offered additional 

recommendations, including: (1) 

NHTSA should to fully integrate EDR 

data into all of its data collection 

systems and crash investigations; (2) 

police and municipal officials should be 

trained to enable them to collect 

accurate and complete EDR data for the 

Fatality Analyses Reporting System 

(FARS) database; and (3) NHTSA should 

create a new database solely for EDR 

data. 

We agree with Public Citizen 

regarding the value of incorporating 

EDR data into our national databases. 

Starting in 2000, NHTSA began to 

routinely collect EDR data in our NASS/ 

CDS, SCI, and Crash Injury Research 

and Engineering Network (CIREN) data 

systems. To date, we have colleted over 

2,700 cases with EDR data. However, we 

are not collecting EDR data in FARS at 

this time. The agency is working with 

police officials to develop guidelines for 

training classes to ensure that EDR data 

are downloaded properly and that these 

officials are educated on the limitations 

of these devices. 

The European Communities requested 

that the U.S. refrain from finalizing its 

EDR proposal until there has been an 

opportunity for further consultations 

both bilaterally and in international 

fora. The European Communities’

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51040 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

58 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50. 

59H.R. Rep. No. 103–180, Table 2A, at 584 (1993). 

60 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). 

61 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9). 

62 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). 63 Id. 

rationale is that EDRs have been 

identified as an item for bilateral 

research cooperation between NHTSA 

and the Directorate-General Enterprise 

of the European Commission. The 

European Communities also noted that 

the World Forum for Harmonization of 

Vehicle Regulations (WP.29), 

administered by the UN Economic 

Commission for Europe (ECE), has 

agreed to establish an informal working 

group on EDRs. The European 

Communities expressed hope that with 

U.S. participation, it would be possible 

to develop a global technical regulation 

for EDRs. 

We have carefully considered the EC’s 

comments. NHTSA has concluded that 

it needs to move forward at this time 

with a basic set of requirements, 

because EDR data can help the 

government and industry better 

understand crash events and safety 

system performance, thereby 

contributing to safer vehicle designs and 

more effective safety regulations. EDR 

data can also play a role in advancing 

developing networks for providing 

emergency medical services, such as 

ACN. The agency has sought to establish 

this foundation in a way that would 

encourage broad application of EDR 

technologies in motor vehicles and 

maximize the usefulness of EDR data for 

researchers, regulators, and the medical 

community, while avoiding the 

imposition of unnecessary burdens or 

hampering future improvements to 

EDRs. 

NHTSA looks forward to continuing 

work on this issue with the European 

Communities, as well as with the 

international community under the 

auspices of the World Forum for the 

Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations 

administered by the United Nations. 

The action taken today in no way 

precludes achieving common 

understandings in the future. 

Mr. Bretherton, an individual, 

commented that better coordination of 

Traffic Records Coordinating 

Committees (TRCCs) within States is 

needed to facilitate the use of crash data 

and that funding is needed to address 

technology needs, to make data uniform 

between States, and to ensure data 

collection by all States. He expressed 

concern that local governments may 

have increased liability as a result of 

crash data. He also stated that ‘‘Fast 

FARS’’ is not a good use of resources. 

Again, although these issues are worth 

considering at an appropriate time and 

in an appropriate forum, they are 

beyond the scope of the present 

rulemaking. 

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

A. Vehicle Safety Act 

Under 49 U.S.C. 322(a), the Secretary 

of Transportation (the ‘‘Secretary’’) has 

authority to prescribe regulations to 

carry out duties and power of the 

Secretary. One of the duties of the 

Secretary is to administer the National 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as 

amended. The Secretary has delegated 

the responsibility for carrying out the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act to NHTSA.58

We note that in 1994, the National 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as 

amended, was repealed and 

simultaneously codified into 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, by 

Pub. L. 103–272 (July 5, 1994). This 

involved moving these provisions from 

15 U.S.C. Chapter 38 to 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301. Section 1(a) of Pub. L. 

103–272 stated that the laws codified 

were so codified ‘‘without substantive 

change.’’ Prior to this codification, a 

specific provision in 15 U.S.C. 1407 

provided, ‘‘The Secretary is authorized 

to issue, amend, and revoke such rules 

and regulations as he deems necessary 

to carry out this subchapter.’’ However, 

in the codification process, this 

provision was deleted as unnecessary, 

because, as specifically noted in the 

legislative history, the Secretary already 

had such powers pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

322(a).59 Thus, the Secretary, and 

NHTSA, have general authority to issue 

such rules and regulations as deemed 

necessary to carry out Chapter 301 of 

Title 49, United States Code. 

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor 

Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), 

the Secretary of Transportation, and, by 

delegation, NHTSA, is responsible for 

prescribing motor vehicle safety 

standards that are practicable, meet the 

need for motor vehicle safety, and are 

stated in objective terms.60 These motor 

vehicle safety standards set the 

minimum level of performance for a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment to be considered safe.61

When prescribing such standards, 

NHTSA must consider all relevant, 

available motor vehicle safety 

information.62 NHTSA also must 

consider whether a proposed standard is 

reasonable, practicable, and appropriate 

for the type of motor vehicle or motor 

vehicle equipment for which it is 

prescribed and the extent to which the 

standard will further the statutory 

purpose of reducing traffic accidents 

and associated deaths.63

Similar to our approach in the area of 

vehicle identification numbers, we 

decided to develop a general regulation 

for EDRs rather than a Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard. We did not 

believe it was appropriate to issue an 

FMVSS that would trigger the statute’s 

recall and remedy provisions, because 

the benefits of EDRs are expected to be 

derivative from better crash-related 

information, rather than having a direct 

impact on the safety of the individual 

vehicle equipped with an EDR. A failure 

to meet the EDR requirements would, 

however, be subject to an enforcement 

action. While we have not issued the 

regulation as an FMVSS, however, we 

have generally followed the statutory 

requirements that apply to FMVSSs. 

First, this final rule was preceded by 

an initial request for comments and an 

NPRM, which facilitated the efforts of 

the agency to obtain and consider 

relevant motor vehicle safety 

information, as well as public 

comments. Further, in preparing this 

document, the agency carefully 

evaluated available research, testing 

results, and other information related to 

various EDR technologies. We have also 

updated our economic estimates and 

analyses to account for new cost 

information provided by public 

commenters. In sum, this document 

reflects our consideration of all relevant, 

available motor vehicle safety 

information. 

Second, to ensure that the EDR 

requirements are practicable, the agency 

considered the cost, availability, and 

suitability of requiring various EDR data 

elements, consistent with our safety 

objectives. We note that EDRs are 

already installed on most light vehicles, 

and because the data elements in the 

final rule are to a large extent already 

incorporated in EDRs, we believe that it 

will be practicable to standardize these 

data elements in light vehicles 

voluntarily equipped with EDRs and 

that such incremental changes will be 

minor. In light of the steady advances 

made in EDR technologies over the past 

few years, we believe that vehicle 

manufacturers will have a number of 

technological choices available for 

meeting the requirements of the final 

rule for EDRs. In sum, we believe that 

this final rule is practicable and will 

provide several benefits, including 

provision of better pre-crash and crashrelated data that may be valuable for 

designing safer vehicles and for use by 

medical first responders. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51041 

Third, the regulatory text following 

this preamble is stated in objective 

terms in order to specify precisely what 

performance is required and how 

performance will be tested to ensure 

compliance with the regulation. 

Specifically, the final rule sets forth 

performance requirements for operation 

of the EDRs, including the type of data 

that the EDR must capture and record, 

the data’s range/accuracy/resolution, 

and the data’s retrievability. 

The final rule also includes test 

requirements for the survivability of 

EDR data through reference to existing 

crash test requirements in other 

FMVSSs (i.e., Standard Nos. 208 and 

214). This approach helps ensure that 

EDR data survive most crashes without 

establishing news kinds of vehicle tests. 

The test procedures under FMVSS Nos. 

208 and 214 already carefully delineate 

how testing is conducted. Thus, the 

agency believes that these test 

procedures are sufficiently objective and 

will not result in any uncertainty as to 

whether a given vehicle satisfies the 

requirements of the EDR regulation. 

Fourth, we believe that this final rule 

will meet the need for motor vehicle 

safety because the EDR regulation will 

help researchers better understand precrash and crash events. Standardization 

of EDR data should improve the 

consistency and comparability of these 

data. This information will be useful to 

NHTSA, vehicle manufacturers, and 

other interested stakeholders for a 

variety of purposes, including 

developing safety vehicle designs and 

more effective regulations. In addition, 

standardized EDR data may be useful for 

ACN and other systems for providing 

emergency medical services. 

Finally, we believe that this final rule 

is reasonable and appropriate for motor 

vehicles subject to the applicable 

requirements (i.e., light vehicles 

voluntarily equipped with EDRs). As 

discussed elsewhere in this notice, the 

agency has sought to limit the minimum 

data set in this final rule to those 

elements necessary to achieve the 

agency’s stated purposes and to 

minimize the burdens associated with 

the regulation. We believe that because 

most EDRs already possess many of 

these capabilities, any required 

adjustments should be minor. 

Accordingly, we believe that this final 

rule is appropriate for covered vehicles 

that are or would become subject to 

these provisions of the EDR regulation 

because it furthers the agency’s 

objective of preventing deaths and 

serious injuries through better 

understanding of crash-related events 

that may lead to safer vehicle designs 

and more effective regulations. 

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), provides for making 

determinations whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and to the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be significant, and the agency has 

prepared a separate document, a Final 

Regulatory Evaluation, addressing the 

benefits and costs for the rule. (A copy 

is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking.) As a significant notice, it 

was reviewed under Executive Order 

12866. The rule is also significant 

within the meaning of the Department 

of Transportation’s Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures. While the potential cost 

impacts of the final rule are far below 

the level that would make this a 

significant rulemaking, the rulemaking 

addresses a topic of substantial public 

interest. 

As discussed in that document and in 

the preceding sections of this final rule, 

the crash data that will be collected by 

EDRs under this rule will be valuable 

for the improvement of vehicle safety. 

We believe that the EDR data we collect 

will improve crash investigations, the 

evaluation of safety countermeasures, 

advanced restraint and safety 

countermeasure research and 

development, and advanced ACN. 

However, the improvement in vehicle 

safety will not occur directly from the 

collection of crash data by EDRs, but 

instead from the ways in which the data 

are used by researchers, vehicle 

manufacturers, ACN and EMS 

providers, government agencies, and 

other members of the safety community. 

Therefore, it is not presently practical to 

quantify the safety benefits. 

We estimate that about 64 percent of 

new light vehicles are already equipped 

with EDRs. As discussed earlier, vehicle 

manufacturers have provided EDRs in 

their vehicles by adding EDR capability 

to their vehicles’ air bag control 

systems. The costs of EDRs have been 

minimized, because they involve the 

capture into memory of data that is 

already being processed by the vehicle, 

and not the much higher costs of 

sensing much of that data in the first 

place. 

The costs of the rule will be the 

incremental costs for vehicles equipped 

with EDRs to comply with the 

requirements. As discussed in the 

agency’s separate document on benefits 

and costs, we estimate the total costs of 

the final rule will range up to $1.7 

million. While the potential costs 

include technology costs, administrative 

costs, and compliance costs, the 

administrative and compliance costs are 

estimated to be negligible. The final rule 

will not require additional sensors to be 

installed in vehicles, and the primary 

technology cost will result from a need 

to upgrade EDR memory chips. The total 

cost for the estimated 9.8 million 

vehicles that already have an EDR 

function to comply with the regulation 

will range up to $1.7 million. If 

manufacturers were to provide EDRs in 

all 15.5 million light vehicles, the 

estimated total cost will range up to 

$10.9 million. A complete discussion of 

how NHTSA arrived at these costs may 

be found in the separate document on 

benefits and costs. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

NHTSA has considered the impacts of 

this rulemaking action under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) I certify that the final rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The following is the agency’s 

statement providing the factual basis for 

the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). This 

rule directly affects motor vehicle 

manufacturers, second stage or final 

manufacturers, and alterers. Business 

entities are defined as ‘‘small 

businesses’’ using the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code, for the purposes of receiving 

Small Business Administration 

assistance. One of the criteria for 

determining size, as stated in 13 CFR 

121.201, is the number of employees in 

the firm. Affected business categories 

include the following. To qualify as a 

small business in: (a) Automotive 

Manufacturing (NAICS 336111), the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51042 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

firm must have fewer than 1,000 

employees; (b) Light Truck and Utility 

Vehicle Manufacturing (NAICS 336112), 

the firm must have fewer than 1,000 

employees; (c) Motor Vehicle Body 

Manufacturing (NAICS 336211), the 

firm must have fewer than 1,000 

employees; (d) All Other Motor Vehicle 

Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 336399), 

the firm must have fewer than 750 

employees; (e) Computer Storage 

Manufacturers (NAICS 334111), the firm 

must have fewer than 1,000 employees, 

and (f) Software Reproducing (NAICS 

334611), the firm must have fewer than 

500 employees. 

Only four of the 18 motor vehicle 

manufacturers affected by this rule 

qualify as a small business. Most of the 

intermediate and final stage 

manufacturers of vehicles built in two 

or more stages and alterers have 1,000 

or fewer employees. However, these 

small businesses adhere to original 

equipment manufacturers’ instructions 

in manufacturing modified and altered 

vehicles. Based on our knowledge, 

original equipment manufacturers do 

not permit a final stage manufacturer or 

alterer to modify or alter sophisticated 

devices such as air bags or EDRs. 

Therefore, multistage manufacturers and 

alterers will be able to rely on the 

certification and information provided 

by the original equipment manufacturer. 

Accordingly, there will be no significant 

impact on small business, small 

organizations, or small governmental 

units by these amendments. 

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132 sets forth 

principles of federalism and the related 

policies of the Federal government. As 

noted above, NHTSA expects that 

general principles of preemption law 

would operate so as to displace any 

conflicting State law or regulations (for 

further discussion of preemption, see 

section IV.B.9 above). 

NHTSA sought comment from all 

stakeholders on the issue of preemption 

through publication of the proposed 

rule in the Federal Register. NHTSA 

received one comment on the proposed 

rule from State and local governmental 

entities. 

Additionally, officials at NHTSA 

consulted with organizations 

representing the interests of state and 

local governments and officials about 

this rulemaking and the issue of 

preemption. 

NHTSA has complied with Executive 

Order 13132 and has determined that 

this final rule is consistent with its 

provisions. 

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

Executive Order 12988 requires that 

agencies review proposed regulations 

and legislation and adhere to the 

following general requirements: (1) The 

agency’s proposed legislation and 

regulations shall be reviewed by the 

agency to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity; (2) The agency’s proposed 

legislation and regulations shall be 

written to minimize litigation; and (3) 

The agency’s proposed legislation and 

regulations shall provide a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct rather 

than a general standard, and shall 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 

When promulgating a regulation, 

Executive Order 12988, specifically 

requires that the agency must make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies 

in clear language the preemptive effect; 

(2) specifies in clear language the effect 

on existing Federal law or regulation, 

including all provisions repealed, 

circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or 

modified; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct rather 

than a general standard, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) specifies in clear language 

the retroactive effect; (5) specifies 

whether administrative proceedings are 

to be required before parties may file 

suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly 

defines key terms; and (7) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship of 

regulations. 

NHTSA has reviewed this final rule 

according to the general requirements 

and the specific requirements for 

regulations set forth in Executive Order 

12988. The issue of the preemptive 

effect of this final rule was discussed in 

detail in the section on Executive Order 

13132 (Federalism) immediately above, 

so rather than repeat those points here, 

we would refer readers to that section 

for a full discussion. A petition for 

reconsideration or other administrative 

proceeding is not required before parties 

may file suit in court. 

F. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Health and Safety Risks) 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19855, April 

23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) 

Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental, health, or safety risk that 

the agency has reason to believe may 

have a disproportionate effect on 

children. If the regulatory action meets 

both criteria, the agency must evaluate 

the environmental health or safety 

effects of the planned rule on children, 

and explain why the planned regulation 

is preferable to other potentially 

effective and reasonable feasible 

alternatives considered by the agency. 

Because the EDR final rule is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866 and 

does not involve decisions based upon 

health and safety risks that 

disproportionately affect children, no 

further analysis under Executive Order 

13045 is necessary. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

GM DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and 

Toyota commented that the agency’s 

NPRM underestimated the paperwork 

burden associated with section 563.12’s 

requirement for filing technical 

instructions for manufacturing 

download devices for each vehicle 

model. The NPRM estimated those 

paperwork costs as 20 hours per year 

per manufacturer. GM’s rationale is that 

the proposed requirement to file this 

information 90 days prior to the start of 

production for each vehicle model 

would require a continuous stream of 

data filings for the multiple vehicle 

launches that full-line manufacturers 

have throughout the calendar year. 

According to GM, each filing would 

involve a compilation of the technical 

data, as well as technical and legal 

review, tasks which would require more 

than 20 hours of work for each vehicle 

model. 

These concerns have been addressed 

because we have decided not to adopt 

the proposed provision, so deleting 

those reporting requirements eliminates 

the paperwork costs that had been 

associated with this rulemaking. Thus, 

there are not any information collection 

requirements associated with this final 

rule. 

H. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113 (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the agency 

to evaluate and use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or is otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies, such as the Society of 

Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51043 

directs us to provide Congress (through 

OMB) with explanations when the 

agency decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. The NTTAA does not apply 

to symbols. 

There are several consensus standards 

related to EDRs, most notably those 

standards published by SAE and IEEE. 

NHTSA has carefully considered the 

consensus standards applicable to EDR 

data elements. Consensus standards for 

recording time/intervals, data sample 

rates, data retrieval, data reliability, data 

range, accuracy and precision, and EDR 

crash survivability were evaluated by 

NHTSA and adopted when practicable. 

In this final rule, we have 

incorporated by reference SAE 

Recommended Practice J211–1, March 

1995, ‘‘Instrumentation for Impact 

Test—Part 1—Electronic 

Instrumentation.’’ For those 

manufacturers that prefer to record 

acceleration data instead of or in 

addition to delta-V, SAE J211–1 

provides a standard for filtering the 

acceleration data that are then converted 

to delta-V either during the recording 

period or in the data downloading 

process. 

Previously in this notice, NHTSA has 

explained why other voluntary 

consensus standards were not adopted 

for certain technical standards set forth 

in this rule. For further analysis of the 

incorporation of consensus standards, 

please refer to section IV.B.14 above. 

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires Federal agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $ 100 million in any one year 

(adjusted for inflation with base year of 

1995). Section 205 of the UMRA 

generally requires that, before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement is needed, NHTSA identify 

and consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative 

other than the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative if the agency publishes with 

the final rule an explanation why that 

alternative was not adopted. 

This rule does not impose any 

unfunded mandates under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. The rule does not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, or the private sector, in 

the aggregate, or more than $118 million 

annually (2004 dollars). Thus, this final 

rule is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

J. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking 

action for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action will not have any significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. 

K. Regulatory Identifier Number 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

L. Privacy Act 

Please note that anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.) 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477–

78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 563 

Incorporation by reference, Motor 

vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

NHTSA hereby amends chapter V of 

title 49 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations by adding 49 CFR part 563 

to read as follows: 

PART 563—EVENT DATA 

RECORDERS 

Sec. 

563.1 Scope. 

563.2 Purpose. 

563.3 Application. 

563.4 Incorporation by reference. 

563.5 Definitions. 

563.6 Requirements for vehicles. 

563.7 Data elements. 

563.8 Data format. 

563.9 Data capture. 

563.10 Crash test performance and 

survivability. 

563.11 Information in owner’s manual. 

563.12 Data retrieval tools. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30101, 30111, 

30115, 30117, 30166, 30168; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

§ 563.1 Scope. 

This part specifies uniform, national 

requirements for vehicles equipped with 

event data recorders (EDRs) concerning 

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 crash investigators and 

researchers are able to retrieve data from 

EDRs. 

§ 563.2 Purpose. 

The purpose of this part is to help 

ensure that EDRs record, in a readily 

usable manner, data valuable for 

effective crash investigations and for 

analysis of safety equipment 

performance (e.g., advanced restraint 

systems). These data will help provide 

a better understanding of the 

circumstances in which crashes and 

injuries occur and will lead to safer 

vehicle designs. 

§ 563.3 Application. 

This part applies to the following 

vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2010, if they are equipped 

with an event data recorder: 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 walkin van-type trucks or vehicles designed 

to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal 

Service. This part also applies to 

manufacturers of those vehicles. 

However, vehicles manufactured before 

September 1, 2011 that are 

manufactured in two or more stages or 

that are altered (within the meaning of 

49 CFR 567.7) after having been 

previously certified to the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards in accordance 

with Part 567 of this chapter need not 

meet the requirements of this part. 

§ 563.4 Incorporation by reference. 

The materials listed in this section are 

incorporated by reference in the 

corresponding sections as noted. These 

incorporations by reference were 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

522(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of 

these materials may be inspected at the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Technical Information 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51044 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Services, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Plaza 

Level, Room 403, Washington, DC 

20590, or at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

(a) The following materials are 

available for purchase from the Society 

of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 

Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 

15096–0001. 

(1) Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE) Recommended Practice J211–1 

rev. March 1995, ‘‘Instrumentation For 

Impact Test—Part 1—Electronic 

Instrumentation’’ SAE J211–1 (rev. 

March 1995) is incorporated by 

reference in Table 3 of § 563.8; 

(2) [Reserved] 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 563.5 Definitions. 

(a) Motor vehicle safety standard 

definitions. Unless otherwise indicated, 

all terms that are used in this part and 

are defined in the Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards, part 571 of this subchapter, 

are used as defined therein. 

(b) Other definitions. 

ABS activity means the anti-lock 

brake system (ABS) is actively 

controlling the vehicle’s brakes. 

Air bag warning lamp status means 

whether the warning lamp required by 

FMVSS No. 208 is on or off. 

Capture means the process of 

buffering EDR data in a temporary, 

volatile storage medium where it is 

continuously updated at regular time 

intervals. 

Delta-V, lateral means the cumulative 

change in velocity, as recorded by the 

EDR of the vehicle, along the lateral 

axis, starting from crash time zero and 

ending at 0.25 seconds, and recorded 

every 0.01 seconds. 

Delta-V, longitudinal means the 

cumulative change in velocity, as 

recorded by the EDR of the vehicle, 

along the longitudinal axis, starting 

from crash time zero and ending at 0.25 

seconds, recorded every 0.01 seconds. 

Deployment time, frontal air bag 

means (for both driver and right front 

passenger) the elapsed time from crash 

time zero to the deployment command 

or for multi-staged air bag systems, the 

deployment command for the first stage. 

Disposal means the deployment 

command of the second (or higher, if 

present) stage of a frontal air bag for the 

purpose of disposing the propellant 

from the air bag device. 

End of event time means the moment 

at which the cumulative delta-V within 

a 20 ms time period becomes 0.8 km/h 

(0.5 mph) or less. 

Engine RPM means, for vehicles 

powered by internal combustion 

engines, the number of revolutions per 

minute of the main crankshaft of the 

vehicle’s engine, and for vehicles not 

powered by internal combustion 

engines, the number of revolutions per 

minute of the motor shaft at the point 

at which it enters the vehicle 

transmission gearbox. 

Engine throttle, percent full means the 

driver requested acceleration as 

measured by the throttle position sensor 

on the accelerator pedal compared to 

the fully depressed position. 

Event means a crash or other physical 

occurrence that causes the trigger 

threshold to be met or exceeded. 

Event data recorder (EDR) means a 

device or function in a vehicle that 

records the vehicle’s dynamic, timeseries 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. 

Frontal air bag means an inflatable 

restraint system that requires no action 

by vehicle occupants and is used to 

meet the applicable frontal crash 

protection requirements of FMVSS No. 

208. 

Ignition cycle, crash means the 

number (count) of power cycles applied 

to the recording device at the time when 

the crash event occurred since the first 

use of the EDR. 

Ignition cycle download means the 

number (count) of power cycles applied 

to the recording device at the time when 

the data was downloaded since the first 

use of the EDR. 

Lateral acceleration means the 

component of the vector acceleration of 

a point in the vehicle in the y-direction. 

The lateral acceleration is positive from 

left to right, from the perspective of the 

driver when seated in the vehicle facing 

the direction of forward vehicle travel. 

Longitudinal acceleration means the 

component of the vector acceleration of 

a point in the vehicle in the x-direction. 

The longitudinal acceleration is positive 

in the direction of forward vehicle 

travel. 

Maximum delta-V, lateral means the 

maximum value of the cumulative 

change in velocity, as recorded by the 

EDR, of the vehicle along the lateral 

axis, starting from crash time zero and 

ending at 0.3 seconds. 

Maximum delta-V, longitudinal 

means the maximum value of the 

cumulative change in velocity, as 

recorded by the EDR, of the vehicle 

along the longitudinal axis, starting 

from crash time zero and ending at 0.3 

seconds. 

Multi-event crash means the 

occurrence of 2 events, the first and last 

of which begin not more than 5 seconds 

apart. 

Non-volatile memory means the 

memory reserved for maintaining 

recorded EDR data in a semi-permanent 

fashion. Data recorded in non-volatile 

memory is retained after a loss of power 

and can be retrieved with EDR data 

extraction tools and methods. 

Normal acceleration means the 

component of the vector acceleration of 

a point in the vehicle in the z-direction. 

The normal acceleration is positive in a 

downward direction and is zero when 

the accelerometer is at rest. 

Occupant position classification 

means the classification indicating that 

the seating posture of a front outboard 

occupant (both driver and right front 

passenger) is determined as being outof-position. 

Occupant size classification means, 

for right front passenger, the 

classification of an occupant as an adult 

and not a child, and for driver, the 

classification of the driver as not being 

of small stature. 

Pretensioner means a device that is 

activated by a vehicle’s crash sensing 

system and removes slack from a 

vehicle safety belt system. 

Record means the process of saving 

captured EDR data into a non-volatile 

device for subsequent retrieval. 

Safety belt status means the feedback 

from the safety system that is used to 

determine than an occupant’s safety belt 

(for both driver and right front 

passenger) is fastened or not fastened. 

Seat track position switch, foremost, 

status means the status of the switch 

that is installed to detect whether the 

seat is moved to a forward position. 

Service brake, on and off means the 

status of the device that is installed in 

or connected to the brake pedal system 

to detect whether the pedal was pressed. 

The device can include the brake pedal 

switch or other driver-operated service 

brake control. 

Side air bag means any inflatable 

occupant restraint device that is 

mounted to the seat or side structure of 

the vehicle interior, and that is designed 

to deploy in a side impact crash to help 

mitigate occupant injury and/or 

ejection. 

Side curtain/tube air bag means any 

inflatable occupant restraint device that 

is mounted to the side structure of the 

vehicle interior, and that is designed to 

deploy in a side impact crash or rollover 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51045 

and to help mitigate occupant injury 

and/or ejection. 

Speed, vehicle indicated means the 

vehicle speed indicated by a 

manufacturer-designated subsystem 

designed to indicate the vehicle’s 

ground travel speed during vehicle 

operation. 

Stability control means any device 

that is not directly controlled by the 

operator (e.g., steering or brakes) and is 

intended to prevent loss of vehicle 

control by sensing, interpreting, and 

adjusting a vehicle’s driving and 

handling characteristics, is controlling 

or assisting the driver in controlling the 

vehicle. 

Steering wheel angle means the 

angular displacement of the steering 

wheel measured from the straight-ahead 

position (position corresponding to zero 

average steer angle of a pair of steered 

wheels). 

Suppression switch status means the 

status of the switch indicating whether 

an air bag suppression system is on or 

off. 

Time from event 1 to 2 means the 

elapsed time from time zero of the first 

event to time zero of the second event. 

Time, maximum delta-V, longitudinal 

means the time from crash time zero to 

the point where the maximum value of 

the cumulative change in velocity is 

found, as recorded by the EDR, along 

the longitudinal axis. 

Time to deploy, pretensioner means 

the elapsed time from crash time zero to 

the deployment command for the safety 

belt pretensioner (for both driver and 

right front passenger). 

Time to deploy, side air bag/curtain 

means the elapsed time from crash time 

zero to the deployment command for a 

side air bag or a side curtain/tube air bag 

(for both driver and right front 

passenger). 

Time to first stage means the elapsed 

time between time zero and the time 

when the first stage of a frontal air bag 

is commanded to fire. 

Time to maximum delta-V, lateral 

means time from crash time zero to the 

point where the maximum value of the 

cumulative change in velocity is found, 

as recorded by the EDR, along the lateral 

axis. 

Time to nth stage means the elapsed 

time from the crash time zero to the 

deployment command for the nth stage 

of a frontal air bag (for both driver and 

right front passenger). 

Time zero means for systems with 

‘‘wake-up’’ air bag control systems, the 

time occupant restraint control 

algorithm is activated; for continuously 

running algorithms, the first point in the 

interval where a longitudinal, 

cumulative delta-V of over 0.8 km/h (0.5 

mph) is reached within a 20 ms time 

period; or for vehicles that record 

‘‘delta-V, lateral,’’ the first point in the 

interval where a lateral, cumulative 

delta-V of over 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) is 

reached within a 5 ms time period. 

Trigger threshold means a change in 

vehicle velocity, in the longitudinal 

direction, that equals or exceeds 8 km/ 

h within a 150 ms interval. For vehicles 

that record ‘‘delta-V, lateral,’’ trigger 

threshold means a change in vehicle 

velocity, in either the longitudinal or 

lateral direction that equals or exceeds 

8 km/h within a 150 ms interval. 

Vehicle roll angle means the angle 

between the vehicle y-axis and the 

ground plane. 

Volatile memory means the memory 

reserved for buffering of captured EDR 

data. The memory is not capable of 

retaining data in a semi-permanent 

fashion. Data captured in a volatile 

memory is continuously overwritten 

and is not retained in the event of a 

power loss or retrievable with EDR data 

extraction tools. 

X-direction means in the direction of 

the vehicle X-axis, which is parallel to 

the vehicle’s longitudinal centerline. 

The X-direction is positive in the 

direction of forward vehicle travel. 

Y-direction means in the direction of 

the vehicle Y-axis, which is 

perpendicular to its X-axis and in the 

same horizontal plane as that axis. The 

Y-direction is positive from left to right, 

from the perspective of the driver when 

seated in the vehicle facing the direction 

of forward vehicle travel. 

Z-direction means in the direction of 

the vehicle Z-axis, which is 

perpendicular to the X- and Y-axes. The 

Z-direction is positive in a downward 

direction. 

§ 563.6 Requirements for vehicles. 

Each vehicle equipped with an EDR 

must meet the requirements specified in 

§ 563.7 for data elements, § 563.8 for 

data format, § 563.9 for data capture, 

§ 563.10 for crash test performance and 

survivability, and § 563.11 for 

information in owner’s manual. 

§ 563.7 Data elements. 

(a) Data elements required for all 

vehicles. 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. 

TABLE I.—DATA ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR ALL VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH AN EDR 

Data element Recording interval/time 1

(relative to time zero) 

Data sample 

rate samples 

per second 

Delta-V, longitudinal ...................................................................................................................... 0 to 250 ms ............................. 100 

Maximum delta-V, longitudinal ...................................................................................................... 0–300 ms ................................. N.A. 

Time, maximum delta-V ................................................................................................................ 0–300 ms ................................. N.A. 

Speed, vehicle indicated ............................................................................................................... ¥5.0 to 0 sec .......................... 2 

Engine throttle, % full (or accelerator pedal, % full) ..................................................................... ¥5.0 to 0 sec .......................... 2 

Service brake, on/off ..................................................................................................................... ¥5.0 to 0 sec .......................... 2 

Ignition cycle, crash ....................................................................................................................... ¥1.0 sec ................................. N.A. 

Ignition cycle, download ................................................................................................................ At time of download ................. N.A. 

Safety belt status, driver ............................................................................................................... ¥1.0 sec ................................. N.A. 

Frontal air bag warning lamp, on/off ............................................................................................. ¥1.0 sec ................................. N.A. 

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.

Event ........................................ N.A. 

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, right front passenger.

Event ........................................ N.A. 

Multi-event, number of events (1,2) .............................................................................................. Event ........................................ N.A. 

Time from event 1 to 2 .................................................................................................................. As needed ............................... N.A. 

Complete file recorded (yes, no) ................................................................................................... Following other data ................ N.A. 

1Pre-crash data and crash data are asynchronous. The sample time accuracy requirement for pre-crash time is ¥0.1 to 1.0 sec (e.g., T = ¥1 

would need to occur between ¥1.1 and 0 seconds.) 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51046 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) Data elements required for 

vehicles under specified conditions. 

Each vehicle equipped with an EDR 

must record each of the data elements 

listed in column 1 of Table II for which 

the vehicle meets the condition 

specified in column 2 of that table, 

during the interval/time and at the 

sample rate specified in that table. 

TABLE II.—DATA ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR VEHICLES UNDER SPECIFIED CONDITIONS

Data element name Condition for 

requirement 

Recording interval/time 1

(relative to time zero) 

Data sample 

rate 

(per second) 

Lateral acceleration ...................................................................................... If recorded 2 ................... 0–250 ms ...................... 500 

Longitudinal acceleration .............................................................................. If recorded ..................... 0–250 ms ...................... 500 

Normal acceleration ...................................................................................... If recorded ..................... 0–250 ms ...................... 500 

Delta-V, lateral .............................................................................................. If recorded ..................... 0–250 ms ...................... 100 

Maximum delta-V, lateral .............................................................................. If recorded ..................... 0–300 ms ...................... N.A. 

Time maximum delta-V, lateral ..................................................................... If recorded ..................... 0–300 ms ...................... N.A. 

Time for maximum delta-V, resultant ........................................................... If recorded ..................... 0–300 ms ...................... N.A. 

Engine rpm ................................................................................................... If recorded ..................... ¥5.0 to 0 sec ............... 2 

Vehicle roll angle .......................................................................................... If recorded ..................... ¥1.0 up to 5.0 sec 3 ..... 10 

ABS activity (engaged, non-engaged) ......................................................... If recorded ..................... ¥5.0 to 0 sec ............... 2 

Stability control (on, off, engaged) ............................................................... If recorded ..................... ¥5.0 to 0 sec ............... 2 

Steering input ............................................................................................... If recorded ..................... ¥5.0 to 0 sec ............... 2 

Safety belt status, right front passenger (buckled, not buckled) .................. If recorded ..................... ¥1.0 sec ....................... N.A. 

Frontal air bag suppression switch status, right front passenger (on, off, 

or auto).

If recorded ..................... ¥1.0 sec ....................... N.A. 

Frontal air bag deployment, time to nth stage, driver 4 ................................. If equipped with a driver’s frontal air bag 

with a multi-stage 

inlator.

Event ............................. N.A. 

Frontal air bag deployment, time to nth stage, right front passenger 4 ........ If equipped with a right 

front passenger’s 

frontal air bag with a 

multi-stage inflator.

Event ............................. N.A. 

Frontal air bag deployment, nth stage disposal, driver, Y/N (whether the 

nth stage deployment was for occupant restraint or propellant disposal 

purposes).

If recorded ..................... Event ............................. N.A. 

Frontal air bag deployment, nth stage disposal, right front passenger, Y/N 

(whether the nth stage deployment was for occupant restraint or propellant disposal purposes).

If recorded ..................... Event ............................. N.A. 

Side air bag deployment, time to deploy, driver .......................................... If recorded ..................... Event ............................. N.A. 

Side air bag deployment, time to deploy, right front passenger .................. If recorded ..................... Event ............................. N.A. 

Side curtain/tube air bag deployment, time to deploy, driver side ............... If recorded ..................... Event ............................. N.A. 

Side curtain/tube air bag deployment, time to deploy, right side ................. If recorded ..................... Event ............................. N.A. 

Pretensioner deployment, time to fire, driver ............................................... If recorded ..................... Event ............................. N.A. 

Pretensioner deployment, time to fire, right front passenger ....................... If recorded ..................... Event ............................. N.A. 

Seat track position switch, foremost, status, driver ...................................... If recorded ..................... ¥1.0 sec ....................... N.A. 

Seat track position switch, foremost, status, right front passenger ............. If recorded ..................... ¥1.0 sec ....................... N.A. 

Occupant size classification, driver .............................................................. If recorded ..................... ¥1.0 sec ....................... N.A. 

Occupant size classification, right front passenger ...................................... If recorded ..................... ¥1.0 sec ....................... N.A. 

Occupant position classification, driver ........................................................ If recorded ..................... ¥1.0 sec ....................... N.A. 

Occupant position classification, right front passenger ................................ If recorded ..................... ¥1.0 sec ....................... N.A. 

1Pre-crash data and crash data are asynchronous. The sample time accuracy requirement for pre-crash time is ¥0.1 to 1.0 sec (e.g. T = ¥1 

would need to occur between ¥1.1 and 0 seconds.) 2 ‘‘If recorded’’ means if the data is recorded in non-volatile memory for the purpose of subsequent downloading. 3 ‘‘Vehicle roll angle’’ may be recorded in any time duration, ¥1.0 sec to 5.0 sec is suggested. 4 List this element n¥1 times, once for each stage of a multi-stage air bag system. 

§ 563.8 Data format. 

(a) The data elements listed in Tables 

I and II, as applicable, must be recorded 

in accordance with the range, accuracy, 

resolution, and filter class specified in 

Table III. 

TABLE III.—RECORDED DATA ELEMENT FORMAT

Data element Range Accuracy Resolution Filter class 

Lateral acceleration ........................... ¥50 g to + 50 g ............ ±5% ............................... 0.01 g ............................ SAE J211–1,1 Class 60. 

Longitudinal acceleration ................... ¥50 g to + 50 g ............ ±5% ............................... 0.01 g ............................ SAE J211–1,1 Class 60. 

Normal Acceleration .......................... ¥50 g to + 50 g ............ ±5% ............................... 0.01 g ............................ SAE J211–1,1 Class 60. 

Longitudinal delta-V ........................... ¥100 km/h + 100 km/h ±5% ............................... 1 km/h ........................... N.A. 

Lateral delta-V ................................... ¥100 km/h to + 100 km/ 

h.

±5% ............................... 1 km/h ........................... N.A. 

Maximum delta-V, longitudinal .......... + 100 km/h + 100 km/h ±5% ............................... 1 km/h ........................... N.A. 

Maximum delta-V, lateral ................... ¥100 km/h to + 100 km/ 

h.

±5% ............................... 1 km/h ........................... N.A. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 51047 

TABLE III.—RECORDED DATA ELEMENT FORMAT—Continued 

Data element Range Accuracy Resolution Filter class 

Time, maximum delta-V, longitudinal 0–300 ms ...................... ±3 ms ............................ 2.5 ms ........................... N.A. 

Time, maximum delta-V, lateral ........ 0–300 ms ...................... ±3 ms ............................ 2.5 ms ........................... N.A. 

Time, maximum delta-V, resultant .... 0–300 ms ...................... ±3 ms ............................ 2.5 ms ........................... N.A. 

Vehicle Roll Angle ............................. ¥1080 deg to + 1080 

deg.

±10 deg ......................... 10 deg ........................... N.A. 

Speed, vehicle indicated ................... 0 km/h to 200 km/h ....... ±1 km/h ......................... 1 km/h ........................... N.A. 

Engine throttle, percent full (accelerator pedal percent full).0 to 100% ..................... ±5% ............................... 1% ................................. N.A. 

Engine rpm ........................................ 0 to 10,000 rpm ............ ±100 rpm ....................... 100 rpm ......................... N.A. 

Service brake, on, off ........................ On and Off .................... N.A ................................ On and Off .................... N.A. 

ABS activity ....................................... On and Off .................... N.A ................................ On and Off .................... N.A. 

Stability control (on, off, engaged) .... On, Off, Engaged .......... N.A ................................ On, Off, Engaged .......... N.A. 

Steering wheel angle ......................... ¥250 deg CW to + 250 

deg CCW.

±5 deg ........................... 5 deg ............................. N.A. 

Ignition cycle, crash ........................... 0 to 60,000 .................... ±1 cycle ......................... 1 cycle ........................... N.A. 

Ignition cycle, download .................... 0 to 60,000 .................... ±1 cycle ......................... 1 cycle ........................... N.A. 

Safety belt status, driver .................... On or Off ....................... N.A ................................ On or Off ....................... N.A. 

Safety belt status, right front passenger.On or Off ....................... N.A ................................ On or Off ....................... N.A. 

Frontal air bag warning lamp (on, off) On or Off ....................... N.A ................................ On or Off ....................... N.A. 

Frontal air bag suppression switch 

status.

On or Off ....................... N.A ................................ On or Off ....................... N.A. 

Frontal air bag deployment, time to 

deploy/first stage, driver.

0 to 250 ms ................... ±2 ms ............................ 1 ms .............................. N.A. 

Frontal air bag deployment, time to 

deploy/first stage, right front passenger.

0 to 250 ms ................... ±2 ms ............................ 1 ms .............................. N.A. 

Frontal air bag deployment, time to 

nth stage, driver.

0 to 250 ms ................... ±2 ms ............................ 1 ms .............................. N.A. 

Frontal air bag deployment, time to 

nth stage, right front passenger.

0 to 250 ms ................... ±2 ms ............................ 1 ms .............................. N.A. 

Frontal air bag deployment, nth stage 

disposal, driver, y/n.

Yes/No .......................... N.A ................................ Yes/No .......................... N.A. 

Frontal air bag deployment, nth stage 

disposal, right front passenger, y/n.

Yes/No .......................... N.A. ............................... Yes/No .......................... N.A. 

Side air bag deployment, time to deploy, driver.0 to 250 ms ................... ±2 ms ............................ 1 ms .............................. N.A. 

Side air bag deployment, time to deploy, right front passenger.0 to 250 ms ................... ±2 ms ............................ 1 ms .............................. N.A. 

Side curtain/tube air bag deployment, 

time to deploy, driver side.

0 to 250 ms ................... ±2 ms ............................ 1 ms .............................. N.A. 

Side curtain/tube air bag deployment, 

time to deploy, right side.

0 to 250 ms ................... ±2 ms ............................ 1 ms .............................. N.A. 

Pretensioner deployment, time to 

fire, driver.

0 to 250 ms ................... ±2 ms ............................ 1 ms .............................. N.A. 

Pretensioner deployment, time to 

fire, right front passenger.

0 to 250 ms ................... ±2 ms ............................ 1 ms .............................. N.A. 

Seat track position switch, foremost, 

status, driver.

Yes/No .......................... N.A ................................ Yes/No .......................... N.A. 

Seat track position switch, foremost, 

status, right front passenger.

Yes/No .......................... N.A ................................ Yes/No .......................... N.A. 

Occupant size driver occupant 5th 

female size y/n.

Yes/No .......................... N.A ................................ Yes/No .......................... N.A. 

Occupant size right front passenger 

child y/n.

Yes/No .......................... N.A ................................ Yes/No .......................... N.A. 

Occupant position classification, driver oop y/n.Yes/No .......................... N.A ................................ Yes/No .......................... N.A. 

Occupant position classification, right 

front passenger oop y/n.

Yes/No .......................... N.A ................................ Yes/No .......................... N.A. 

Multi-event, number of events (1, 2) 1 or 2 ............................ N.A ................................ 1 or 2 ............................ N.A. 

Time from event 1 to 2 ...................... 0 to 5.0 sec ................... 0.1 sec .......................... 0.1 sec .......................... N.A. 

Complete file recorded (yes/no) ........ Yes/No .......................... N.A ................................ Yes/No .......................... N.A. 

1 Incorporated by reference, see § 563.4. 

(b) Acceleration Time-History data 

and format: The longitudinal, lateral, 

and normal acceleration time-history 

data, as applicable, must be filtered in 

accordance with the filter class 

specified in Table III either during the 

recording phase or during the data 

downloading phase to include: 

(1) The Time Step (TS) that is the 

inverse of the sampling frequency of the 

acceleration data and which has units of 

seconds; 

(2) The number of the first point 

(NFP), which is an integer that when 

multiplied by the TS equals the time 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2

51048 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

relative to time zero of the first 

acceleration data point; 

(3) The number of the last point 

(NLP), which is an integer that when 

multiplied by the TS equals the time 

relative to time zero of the last 

acceleration data point; and 

(4) NLP¥NFP+1 acceleration values 

sequentially beginning with the 

acceleration at time NFP*TS and 

continue sampling the acceleration at 

TS increments in time until the time 

NLP*TS is reached. 

§ 563.9 Data capture. 

The EDR must capture and record the 

data elements for events in accordance 

with the following conditions and 

circumstances: 

(a) In an air bag deployment crash, the 

data recorded from any previous crash 

must be deleted (both events). The data 

related to the deployment must be 

captured and recorded. The memory 

must be locked to prevent any future 

overwriting of these data. 

(b) In an air bag non-deployment 

crash that meets the trigger threshold, 

delete all previously recorded data in 

the EDR’s memory. Capture and record 

the current data, up to two events. In the 

case of two events, detection of the 

second event starts after the End of 

Event Time for event 1. 

§ 563.10 Crash test performance and 

survivability. 

(a) Each vehicle subject to the 

requirements of S5, S14.5, S15, or S17 

of 49 CFR 571.208, Occupant crash 

protection, must comply with the 

requirements in subpart (c) of this 

section when tested according to S8, 

S16, and S18 of 49 CFR 571.208. 

(b) Each vehicle subject to the 

requirements of 49 CFR 571.214, Side 

impact protection, that meets a trigger 

threshold or has a frontal air bag 

deployment, must comply with the 

requirements of subpart (c) of this 

section when tested according to the 

conditions specified in 49 CFR 571.214 

for a moving deformable barrier test. 

(c) The data elements required by 

§ 563.7, except for the ‘‘Engine throttle, 

percent full,’’ ‘‘engine RPM,’’ and 

‘‘service brake, on/off,’’ must be 

recorded in the format specified by 

§ 563.8, exist at the completion of the 

crash test, and be retrievable by the 

methodology specified by the vehicle 

manufacturer under § 563.12 for not less 

than 10 days after the test, and the 

complete data recorded element must 

read ‘‘yes’’ after the test. 

§ 563.11 Information in owner’s manual. 

(a) The owner’s manual in each 

vehicle covered under this regulation 

must provide the following statement in 

English: 

This vehicle is equipped with an event 

data recorder (EDR). The main purpose of an 

EDR is to record, in certain crash or near 

crash-like situations, such as an air bag 

deployment or hitting a road obstacle, data 

that will assist in understanding how a 

vehicle’s systems performed. The EDR is 

designed to record data related to vehicle 

dynamics and safety systems for a short 

period of time, typically 30 seconds or less. 

The EDR in this vehicle is designed to record 

such data as: 

• How various systems in your vehicle 

were operating; 

• Whether or not the driver and passenger 

safety belts were buckled/fastened; 

• How far (if at all) the driver was 

depressing the accelerator and/or brake 

pedal; and, 

• How fast the vehicle was traveling. 

These data can help provide a better 

understanding of the circumstances in which 

crashes and injuries occur. NOTE: EDR data 

are recorded by your vehicle only if a nontrivial crash situation occurs; no data are 

recorded by the EDR under normal driving 

conditions and no personal data (e.g., name, 

gender, age, and crash location) are recorded. 

However, other parties, such as law 

enforcement, could combine the EDR data 

with the type of personally identifying data 

routinely acquired during a crash 

investigation. 

To read data recorded by an EDR, special 

equipment is required, and access to the 

vehicle or the EDR is needed. In addition to 

the vehicle manufacturer, other parties, such 

as law enforcement, that have the special 

equipment, can read the information if they 

have access to the vehicle or the EDR. 

(b) The owner’s manual may include 

additional information about the form, 

function, and capabilities of the EDR, in 

supplement to the required statement in 

§ 563.11(a). 

§ 563.12 Data retrieval tools. 

Each manufacturer of a motor vehicle 

equipped with an EDR shall ensure by 

licensing agreement or other means that 

a tool(s) is commercially available that 

is capable of accessing and retrieving 

the data stored in the EDR that are 

required by this part. The tool(s) shall 

be commercially available not later than 

90 days after the first sale of the motor 

vehicle for purposes other than resale. 

Issued on: August 18, 2006. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 06–7094 Filed 8–21–06; 10:00 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES2