```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 102810-102834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29862]

[[Page 102810]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 563

[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0084]
RIN 2127-AM12

Event Data Recorders

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends regulations regarding event data 
recorders (EDRs) to extend the EDR recording period for timed data 
metrics from 5 seconds of pre-crash data at a frequency of 2 Hz to 20 
seconds of pre-crash data at a frequency of 10 Hz. This final rule 
responds to the mandate of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation 
Act (FAST Act) to establish the appropriate recording period in NHTSA's 
EDR regulation.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective January 17, 2025.
    Compliance Dates: The compliance date is September 1, 2027. 
Vehicles produced by small-volume or limited-line manufacturers must 
comply with this final rule on or after September 1, 2029. Altered 
vehicles and vehicles manufactured in two or more stages must comply 
with this final rule if manufactured on or after September 1, 2030.
    Petition for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of this 
final rule must be received not later than February 3, 2025.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer 
to the docket number set forth above (NHTSA-2024-0084) and be submitted 
to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all 
petitions received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any 
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit your 
complete submission, including the information you claim to be 
confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the 
address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you 
should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed 
confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address 
given above. When you send a submission containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation (49 CFR part 512). Please see further 
information in the Regulatory Notices and Analyses section of this 
preamble.
    Privacy Act: The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is 
able to search the electronic form of all documents 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 (65 FR 
19477-78) or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, or the street address 
listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For technical issues: Mr. Joshua McNeil, Office of Crashworthiness 
Standards, Telephone: (202) 366-1810, Facsimile: (202) 493-2739.
    For legal issues: Ms. Natasha D. Reed, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
Telephone: (202) 366-2992, Facsimile: (202) 366-3820. The mailing 
address for these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. Overview of the Event Data Recorder Technology and Regulatory 
History
    B. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    A. Developments Culminating in the NPRM
    B. Summary of the NPRM
    C. Requirements of the Final Rule
    D. Lead Time
IV. Final Rule and Response to Comments
    A. Recording Duration and Sampling Rate
    B. EDR Components
    C. Additional Data Elements
    D. Privacy Considerations
    E. International Harmonization
    F. Other Considerations
V. Summary of Estimated Costs and Benefits
    A. Benefits
    B. Costs
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

    NHTSA established 49 CFR part 563 (part 563) in 2006, setting forth 
requirements for data elements, data capture and format, data 
retrieval, and data crash survivability of EDRs.\1\ Part 563 does not 
mandate EDRs on vehicles, but is instead an ``if equipped'' standard 
applying only to light vehicles required to have frontal air bags that 
a manufacturer chooses to voluntarily equip with EDRs.\2\ Part 563 
ensures all EDRs subject to the regulation capture the same core set of 
data elements in a crash, standardizes the parameters (format, 
duration, etc.) of captured data elements, and sets minimum 
requirements for data survivability.\3\ Part 563 further requires that 
manufacturers of vehicles with EDRs subject to part 563 make 
commercially available a tool for the purpose of downloading \4\ the 
data collected by the EDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 71 FR 50998 (Aug. 28, 2006).
    \2\ In 2012, NHTSA proposed to convert part 563's ``if 
equipped'' requirements for EDRs into a new Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) mandating the installation of EDRs in most 
light vehicles. The NPRM did not propose making any changes to the 
current EDR regulation's performance requirements, including those 
for the required data elements (77 FR 74144 (Dec. 13, 2012)). In 
2019, NHTSA withdrew that proposal due to the near universal 
installation of EDRs on light vehicles (84 FR 2804 (Feb. 8, 2019)).
    \3\ Part 563 requires EDR data to survive the crash tests in 
FMVSS Nos. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' and 214, ``Side 
impact protection.''
    \4\ For the purposes herein, we are using the term 
``downloading'' to refer to the process by which data are retrieved 
from an EDR. When downloading the data on an EDR, the original data 
set remains intact and unchanged in the memory banks of the EDR. 
NHTSA has also used the term ``imaging'' in other documents to refer 
to the same process. NHTSA uses imaging and downloading 
interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rulemaking amends current NHTSA regulations regarding EDRs 
under part 563 by extending the capture and recording period for timed 
data metrics from 5 seconds of pre-crash data at a sample rate of 2 Hz 
to 20 seconds of pre-crash data at a sample rate of 10 Hz (i.e., an 
increase from 2 samples per second to 10 samples per second). The 
objective of this amendment is to capture and record the appropriate 
amount of data to provide sufficient vehicle-related data to assist 
investigations of the cause of motor vehicle crashes. This rulemaking 
is issued in response to a statutory mandate under section 24303 of the 
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Pub. L. 119-14 
(Dec. 4, 2015).
    The increased sample rate required by this final rule will provide 
crash investigators a better understanding of the sequence of pre-crash 
actions, and

[[Page 102811]]

the increased recording duration will provide more details on actions 
taken prior to crashes. Specifically, with the implementation of this 
final rule's increased recording duration, actions such as running a 
stop sign or red light could be captured in full and included in crash 
reconstruction when supplemented with roadway and traffic control 
information. The increased recorded duration could also help capture 
any corrective maneuvers taken by a vehicle prior to an initial road 
departure. The increased data recording frequency required by this 
final rule will help clarify the interpretation of recorded pre-crash 
information, including braking and steering actions taken by a vehicle. 
It will also help reduce potential uncertainty related to the relative 
timing of recorded data elements, and assist with the identification of 
potential pedal misapplication.

II. Background

A. Overview of the Event Data Recorder Technology and Regulatory 
History

    Event data recorders are devices installed in a vehicle to capture 
and record technical information immediately before and during a crash 
on the status and operation of vehicle systems. An EDR reserves a 
random access memory (RAM) buffer the size of one EDR record to locally 
store data before the data are written to memory. The data are 
typically stored using Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only 
Memory (EEPROM) or data flash memory,\5\ both of which are types of 
non-volatile memory. The RAM buffer is typically embedded in the 
microprocessor, a component of the EDR that may require an upgrade if 
the processing capabilities are insufficient to meet the new EDR data 
capture requirements. During a crash, one or more capacitors are used 
as backup power (energy reserve) to power the EDR, as the main battery 
is assumed to be cut off. The capacitor(s) must have sufficient energy 
to power the entire transfer of data. These components are housed in 
packaging and manufacturer development and validation stages are aimed 
at ensuring the EDR functions as intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Flash memory is an electronic computer memory storage medium 
that can be electrically erased and reprogrammed and can retain 
stored information even when power is removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDR event data are permanently recorded at the end of a specified 
event. In most cases, data are captured during events meeting a pre-
determined threshold of severity or in events severe enough to cause 
air bag deployment. This information can aid crash investigators in 
assessing the performance of specific safety equipment, including event 
air bag deployment strategies, air bag operation, and event severity. 
Captured information can also help NHTSA and others identify potential 
opportunities for safety improvements in current and future vehicles 
and implement more effective safety regulations. It may also help first 
responders assess the severity of a crash, estimate the probability of 
serious injury in vehicles equipped with Advanced Automatic Crash 
Notification (AACN) systems, and improve defect investigations and 
crash data collection quality.
    NHTSA established 49 CFR part 563 (part 563) on August 28, 2006, 
setting forth requirements for the accuracy, collection, storage, 
survivability, and retrievability of data in vehicles equipped with 
EDRs.\6\ Tables I and II of part 563 detail the various data elements 
covered under the standard. Table I lists 15 data elements all EDRs 
subject to part 563 are required to record, along with the recording 
interval (duration) and sampling frequency. Table II lists data 
elements that EDRs subject to part 563 are not required to record, but 
that are subject to part 563 if they are recorded. Two data elements in 
Table II are listed as ``if equipped,'' meaning if a vehicle has the 
specified equipment, the specified information must be recorded. Table 
II also provides the recording interval (duration) and sampling 
frequency for each listed data element. In addition, all data elements 
in Tables I and II must be reported according to the range, accuracy, 
and resolution in Table III of part 563. Relevant to this final rule, 
there are currently seven data elements in Table I and Table II that 
must be captured for a duration of 5 seconds prior to the crash (speed, 
engine throttle, service brake, engine RPM, ABS activity, stability 
control, and steering input). NHTSA established this 5-second duration 
after concluding this length would ensure the usefulness of the data in 
crash reconstruction while minimizing the risk of overtaxing an EDR's 
microprocessor during the data capture process, which could cause a 
malfunction resulting in data loss.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 71 FR 50998 (Aug. 28, 2006).
    \7\ NHTSA proposed a recording duration of 8 seconds in the NPRM 
for what became the 2006 final rule (69 FR 32942 (June 14, 2004)). 
However, NHTSA decided to reduce the duration in response to public 
comments (71 FR 50998, 51020 (Aug. 28, 2006)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Part 563 became fully effective on September 1, 2012. Since this 
time, the adoption of EDRs has been nearly universal, as NHTSA's 
internal analysis estimates 99.5 percent of model year 2021 passenger 
cars and other vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 
3,855 kilograms (kg) (8,500 pounds) or less are equipped with part 563 
compliant EDRs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 87 FR 37289 (June 22, 2022). See supra note 2 and 
accompanying text. The 2012 NPRM estimated that about 92 percent of 
model year 2010 light vehicles had some EDR capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act

    This rulemaking addresses a statutory mandate under section 24303 
of the FAST Act, which requires NHTSA to ``submit to Congress a report 
that contains the results of a study conducted by the Administrator to 
determine the amount of time event data recorders installed in 
passenger motor vehicles should capture and record for retrieval 
vehicle-related data in conjunction with an event in order to provide 
sufficient information to investigate the cause of motor vehicle 
crashes.'' \9\ The FAST Act further provides that, within two years of 
submitting this report to Congress, NHTSA ``shall promulgate 
regulations to establish the appropriate period during which event data 
recorders installed in passenger motor vehicles may capture and record 
for retrieval vehicle-related data to the time necessary to provide 
accident investigators with vehicle-related information pertinent to 
crashes involving such motor vehicles.'' \10\ This final rule 
promulgates regulations to establish appropriate EDR data recording 
durations as mandated under the FAST Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, December 4, 2015.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Developments Culminating in the NPRM

    To meet the agency's initial obligation under section 24303 of the 
FAST Act, NHTSA contracted with researchers at Virginia Polytechnic 
Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) to conduct a study (the 
``EDR Duration Study'') to determine the amount of time EDRs should 
capture and record information to provide sufficient vehicle-related 
data to support investigation of the cause of motor vehicle crashes. 
The study focused on three crash types that could potentially benefit 
from more than the currently required 5 seconds of pre-crash data: 
rear-end, intersection, and roadway departure crashes. These three 
crash modes were selected because they comprised approximately 70 
percent of

[[Page 102812]]

all passenger vehicle crashes annually,\11\ require relatively longer 
maneuvering times, and represent the most prevalent and relatively 
severe crashes based on fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Derived from the NHTSA report ``Target Crash Population for 
Crash Avoidance Technologies in Passenger Vehicles,'' March 2019, 
DOT HS 812 653.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EDR Duration Study \12\ took place in two phases. Phase I 
sought to estimate how frequently EDRs fail to record sufficient pre-
crash data. Phase I did not analyze the amount of pre-crash data 
required to capture crash causation beyond the 5 seconds currently 
required under part 563. Analyzing cases in the National Automotive 
Sampling System-Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) database, Phase 
I determined part 563's current recording duration of 5 seconds failed 
to capture the initiation of all driver crash avoidance maneuvers for 
each of the three crash types studied. Evasive steering initiation 
represented the largest percentage of avoidance maneuvers not captured 
by the 5 second recording duration in all three crash types.\13\ The 
study concluded the 5-second recording duration may be insufficient in 
many cases to determine the factors leading to a crash or to capture 
the pre-crash actions taken by a driver to avoid collision, potentially 
resulting in crash investigators having insufficient crash-related EDR 
information to determine crash causation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Event Data Recorder Duration Study [Appendix to a Report to 
Congress. Report No. DOT HS 813 082B], 2022, https://doi.org/10.21949/1530244.
    \13\ From Phase I, the EDR failed to record the initiation of 
steering in 80% of rear-end crashes, 64% of intersection crashes, 
and 88% of road departure crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phase II of the EDR Duration Study sought to determine what 
recording duration would provide crash investigators with sufficient 
data to determine crash causation. The study analyzed data from 
naturalistic driving studies (NDS) \14\ to understand the complete 
duration (5 seconds or greater) of driver pre-crash actions in the 
following three types of crashes: rear-end, intersection, and road 
departure. Phase II found that 20 seconds of pre-crash data would 
encompass the 90th percentile recording duration required for the three 
crash modes and crash avoidance maneuvers analyzed. This conclusion 
means that, based on the cumulative distributions for all three crash 
modes and crash avoidance maneuvers analyzed, 20 seconds of pre-crash 
data recording captures the driver pre-crash actions in 90 percent of 
the dataset.\15\ Table 1 summarizes the relevant Phase II findings. A 
more detailed summary of the EDR Duration Study can be found in the 
NPRM associated with this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Phase II used data from two previously conducted 
naturalistic driving studies: a 2002 100-car study conducted by 
Virginia Tech, and the 2016 Second Strategic Highway Research 
Program (SHRP-2) NDS conducted by the Transportation Research Board 
of The National Academies.
    \15\ This duration is influenced heavily by the inclusion of 
intersection crashes. Without the inclusion of intersection crashes, 
12.3 seconds of data would encompass the 90th percentile recording 
duration for rear-end and road departure crashes.

  Table 1--Summary of Recording Duration Necessary To Capture Pre-Crash
                     Actions From EDR Duration Study
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Duration of pre-crash action
                                                  (seconds)
     Driver pre-crash maneuver     -------------------------------------
                                     50th percentile    90th percentile
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear-End Crash:
    Time to Closest Approach......                4.5               12.3
Intersection Crash:
    Approach + Traversal..........          12.6-15.1     \16\ 16.0-18.6
Road Departure Crash: *
    Drift out of lane to Recovery.                3.2                6.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Lane excursion events were examined in the 100-car NDS.

    On September 28, 2018, following completion of the EDR Duration 
Study, NHTSA submitted a Report to Congress summarizing the study 
results to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, as required by 
section 24303 of the FAST Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The range of time shown for intersection crashes was 
derived from intersections with different numbers of lanes. The 
lower bound represents time for 2-lane intersections and the upper 
bound represents time for 7-lane intersections.
    \17\ The 2018 report ``Event Data Recorder Study'' is available 
at https://www.nhtsa.gov/reports-to-congress. An appendix to the 
report to Congress was later published in March 2022 with more 
details on the EDR Duration Study. See ``Event Data Recorder 
Duration Study [Appendix to a Report to Congress. Report No. DOT HS 
813 082B],'' 2022, https://doi.org/10.21949/1530244.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of the NPRM

    On June 22, 2022, pursuant to section 24303 of the FAST Act, NHTSA 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend part 563.\18\ 
The NPRM relied on the findings of the EDR Duration Study and 
information gathered from NHTSA's defects investigation experience, 
which has demonstrated EDR data can be used to assist the agency in 
assessing whether a vehicle operated properly at the time of an event 
can help detect undesirable operations.\19\ Based on these findings and 
information, the NPRM proposed extending the recording interval and 
data sample rate of pre-crash data elements under part 563 from 5 
seconds of pre-crash data at a frequency of 2 Hz to 20 seconds of pre-
crash data at a frequency of 10 Hz (i.e., an increase from 2 samples 
per second to 10 samples per second). The seven frequency-based pre-
crash data elements affected by the proposed amendments are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 87 FR 37289 (June 22, 2022)
    \19\ In 2010, NHTSA began to obtain data from Toyota EDRs as 
part of its inquiry into allegations of unintended acceleration, and 
as a follow-up to the recalls of some Toyota models for sticking and 
entrapped accelerator pedals. The Toyota unintended acceleration 
study (NHTSA Report No. NHTSA-NVS-2011-ETC, ``Technical Assessment 
of Toyota electronic Throttle Control (ETC) Systems,'' January 2011) 
helped determine the root cause of each crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Three required data elements in Table I of part 563: 
``Speed, Vehicle Indicated,'' ``Engine throttle, % full (or accelerator 
pedal, % full),'' and ``Service brake, on/off,''
     Four ``if recorded'' data elements in Table II of part 
563: ``Engine RPM,'' ``ABS activity (engaged, non-engaged),'' 
``Stability control (on, off, engaged),'' and ``Steering input.''
    In support of the proposal, the NPRM explained that the EDR 
Duration Study concluded extending part 563's recording duration from 5 
to 20 seconds would help capture critical pre-crash

[[Page 102813]]

data. The NPRM also proposed increasing the EDR sampling frequency of 
pre-crash data from 2 Hz to 10 Hz,\20\ explaining that an increased 
sampling rate, in addition to an increased pre-crash recording 
duration, is critical in determining crash causation. In support of the 
proposal, the NPRM explained that in some crash circumstances (e.g., 
brake application and release or rapid reversals in steering input of 
less than 0.5 seconds), 2 Hz may be insufficient to identify crash 
causation factors, as it is possible for an EDR recording at 2 Hz to 
miss rapid vehicle control inputs. Thus, although more crash causation 
information would be captured with the proposed 20 second time 
duration, this data could be misinterpreted without a refinement and 
increase in the EDR sampling acquisition frequency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Table I in part 563 currently requires an EDR to capture 
pre-crash data at a sample rate of 2 samples per second (Hz). The 
same sample rate applies to Table II elements of engine revolutions 
per minute (RPM), anti-lock braking system (ABS) status, electronic 
stability control (ESC) status, and steering input.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM further explained an improved data sampling rate is needed 
because of how fast the sequence of events leading to crashes can 
happen and how fast the vehicle's systems need to activate in response 
to such events, such as crash avoidance technologies activation (e.g., 
antilock braking system and electronic stability control). In support 
of increasing the EDR sampling frequency of pre-crash data from 2 Hz to 
10 Hz, the NPRM noted the current sampling rate of 2 Hz is well below 
the timing necessary to understand the performance and effectiveness of 
such systems. Additionally, it explained the EDR output for the pre-
crash data elements is not synchronized,\21\ even at the sampling rate 
of 2 Hz, which could result in uncertainty when comparing data at 
specific points in time with precision. Finally, the NPRM pointed out a 
greater sampling rate for the pre-crash data elements would reduce 
potential uncertainty related to the relative timing of data elements, 
specifically for correlating the driver's commands and the vehicle's 
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ While true time synchronization of data originating from 
the vehicle network may not be possible, the increased sample rate 
for pre-crash data elements may reduce the potential uncertainty 
related to the relative timing of data elements, specifically for 
correlating the driver's commands and the vehicle's performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In discussing the benefits of the proposal, the NPRM stated 
increasing the recording time for the pre-crash data would help ensure 
that data on the initiation of pre-crash actions and maneuvers is 
captured for most crashes. The NPRM further explained that increased 
data will enhance the usefulness of the recorded information and 
potentially lead to further improvements in the safety of current and 
future vehicles. The NPRM acknowledged the proposed changes could add 
additional costs, as increased EDR memory may be required in some 
cases. However, the agency explained it believed needed memory changes 
could be incorporated into the existing or planned memory design in 
vehicles, based on how slight any increased memory requirements needed 
to accommodate the added EDR data storage would be. The agency further 
explained its belief that in most cases the amount of additional memory 
necessary to comply with the proposed requirements would be less than 
the unused memory on a vehicle's airbag control module (ACM) chip. 
Finally, the agency stated it anticipated the proposal would require no 
additional processor speed or backup power needs, despite the proposed 
increases in recording duration and frequency.
    The NPRM proposed an effective date of the first September 1 one 
year after the publication of the final rule. The agency explained that 
a one-year lead time was appropriate because increasing the required 
pre-crash data recording time should not require any additional 
hardware or substantial redesign of either the EDR or the vehicle and 
would likely require only minimal software changes.
    NHTSA sought comments on several aspects of the NPRM, including:
    1. The need and practicability of increasing the pre-crash 
recording duration.
    2. The need and practicability of increasing the sampling rate.
    3. Whether current EDRs will need to increase their memory capacity 
or change the memory implementation strategy (i.e., short term memory 
buffer verse long-term storage) to meet the new requirements.
    4. Whether the NPRM's cost estimates and assumptions are accurate, 
including comments on whether there are other costs (e.g., redesign for 
a larger unit, additional capacity for Random-Access Memory (RAM), 
etc.), or other factors the agency needs to consider.
    5. Any potential impact of the NPRM's proposal on the ACM processor 
and associated cost.
    6. Comments on the proposed lead time.
    7. Comments on the DOT's Office of the Secretary's Privacy Office 
(DOT Privacy Office) tentative determination that the proposed 
rulemaking does not create privacy risk, as no new or substantially 
changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information 
in an identifiable form because of the proposed rule.
    The agency received responses from a wide variety of stakeholders 
and interested persons in response to the NPRM's request for comments. 
These comments are available in the docket for the NPRM \22\ and are 
discussed in detail in the response to comments section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NHTSA-2022-0021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Requirements of the Final Rule

    After careful consideration of comments received and the 
requirements of the FAST Act, NHTSA is promulgating this final rule to 
amend regulations regarding EDRs. Under this final rule, the recording 
duration and data sample rate of 7 data elements in Tables I and II 
under part 563 will increase to 20 seconds at 10 Hz from the previous 
requirements of 5 seconds at 2 Hz, as proposed by the NPRM and shown in 
Table 2.

                                 Table 2--New EDR Requirements Under Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Previous requirements             Requirements under final rule
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Recording                             Recording
            Data element              interval/time \1\   Data sample rate    interval/time     Data sample rate
                                      (relative to time     (samples per    (relative to time     (samples per
                                         zero) (sec)          second)          zero) (sec)          second)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Recording interval/time (relative to time zero)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed, vehicle indicated............          -5.0 to 0                  2         -20.0 to 0                 10

[[Page 102814]]

 
Engine Throttle, % full (or                   -5.0 to 0                  2         -20.0 to 0                 10
 accelerator pedal, % full).........
Service brake, on/off...............          -5.0 to 0                  2         -20.0 to 0                 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Data Elements Required for Vehicles Under Specified Minimum Conditions \2\ (Table II)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine rpm..........................          -5.0 to 0                  2         -20.0 to 0                 10
ABS activity (engaged, non-engaged).          -5.0 to 0                  2         -20.0 to 0                 10
Stability control (on, off, or                -5.0 to 0                  2         -20.0 to 0                 10
 engaged)...........................
Steering input......................          -5.0 to 0                  2         -20.0 to 0                 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pre-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 the data for these data elements is recorded in non-volatile memory for the purpose of subsequent
  downloading, they must meet the recording duration and frequency requirements in part 563.

    The approach of this final rule is generally consistent with that 
of the NPRM. Minor non-substantive changes have been made to the final 
rule's regulatory text in the interest of simplification and 
organizational purposes, including by maintaining the current language 
of Sec.  563.3. Additionally, based on comments received we have 
adjusted estimated costs and modified the lead time to provide 
manufacturers the time necessary to make any software, testing, and 
development changes required to ensure the EDR captures and records 
pre-crash data without affecting air bag deployment, while still 
fulfilling the agency's statuary mandate in a reasonable amount of 
time.

D. Lead Time

    The NPRM sought to provide adequate lead time to manufacturers to 
allow them to incorporate necessary changes as part of their routine 
production cycles while also limiting the transition costs associated 
with the standardization of EDR data. To that end, the NPRM proposed an 
effective date of the first September 1 one year after the publication 
of the final rule. The NPRM estimated that 99.5 percent of model year 
2021 passenger cars and other vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg or less 
had part 563-compliant EDRs. As discussed in the cost section of the 
NPRM, the agency believed that increasing the required pre-crash data 
recording duration and data sample rate would not require additional 
hardware or substantial redesign of the EDR or vehicle and would likely 
require only minimal software changes and testing for validation.
Comments
    NHTSA received several comments criticizing the agency's proposed 
one-year lead time, with commenters stating it did not consider the 
complexity of EDR implementation, along with the time needed for 
testing and validation to ensure the primary and secondary 
functionalities of the EDR. Commenters expressed that a lead time of 
one year could compromise safety and suggested alternative lead times 
ranging around 3 to 4 years. Several commenters also suggested a phase-
in schedule extending out several years following publication of the 
final rule to allow manufacturers more time to significantly redesign 
the current software and hardware on their EDRs. The Motor & Equipment 
Manufacturers Association (MEMA) stated that software for a new vehicle 
is typically completed 18 months prior to the start of production, and 
that suppliers also require 18 months to deliver a validated update to 
manufacturers, along with an additional 18 months to test and certify 
the new system. Commenters also sought exemptions for vehicle platforms 
nearing the end of their lifecycle within 1-2 years of the Final Rule.
    The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators) expressed 
concern that the short lead time, additional memory requirements, and 
other system resources necessary to meet the proposed increase in pre-
crash recording duration and frequency could result in some 
manufacturers being forced to deactivate the EDR function entirely, or 
to shift EDR resources by choosing not to record Table II or ADAS 
system status data elements.
    Though supportive of the proposal, the Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety and Highway Loss Data Institute (IIHS-HLDI) commented 
that if manufacturers were not able to meet the new requirements given 
the one-year lead time, they may instead choose to disable EDR 
functionality. IIHS-HLDI indicated support of a longer lead time to 
avoid the loss of any EDR data before the new requirements can be met.
    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) indicated the 
proposed lead time was reasonable and that the proposed changes from 5 
seconds of pre-crash data at 2 Hz to 20 seconds of pre-crash data at 10 
Hz should be practical to implement.
Agency Response
    NHTSA acknowledges comments from vehicle manufacturers and others 
stating that the NPRM's proposed lead time would not allow 
manufacturers to incorporate the proposed changes as part of their 
regular production cycle. NHTSA agrees with comments received stating 
that a longer lead time is needed to allow manufacturers the 
flexibility to better manage the implementation of the final rule and 
alleviate unnecessary redesign costs for EDRs. Following review of 
comments received and further analysis, this final rule doubles the 
proposed lead time to accommodate manufacturer concerns, while also 
fulfilling the agency's statuary mandate under the FAST Act in a 
reasonable amount of time. As a result, the revised requirements will 
be implemented beginning with vehicles manufactured on or after 
September 1, 2027. Limited line \23\ and small-volume

[[Page 102815]]

manufacturers \24\ will only need to produce compliant EDRs on or after 
September 1, 2029. Manufacturers producing altered vehicles or vehicles 
in two or more stages will have one additional year, until September 1, 
2030, for compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Limited line manufacturer means a manufacturer that sells 
three or fewer carlines, as that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in 
the United States during a production year.
    \24\ Small-volume manufacturer as defined in 49 CFR 571.127, 
``Automatic emergency braking systems for light vehicles,'' is an 
original vehicle manufacturer that produces or assembles fewer than 
5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Extending the lead time beyond 2 years is not necessary. NHTSA 
understands that some vehicle models already have sufficient hardware 
to meet the requirements of this final rule, with one manufacturer 
indicating that a majority of its vehicle models are already equipped 
with sufficient hardware. NHTSA acknowledges that those EDRs would 
still potentially require up to 2 years of software development and 
testing to ensure their quality meets this final rule's part 563 
requirements and that air bag deployment, if the EDR function shares 
resources with the restraint systems, is not affected by the extended 
duration and sampling rate of the EDR pre-crash data. Based on NHTSA's 
internal analysis of EDR records in the Crash Investigation Sampling 
System (CISS), other manufacturers also have some EDR modules that 
could meet the requirements of this final rule without hardware 
changes.
    The agency did consider a phase-in period in response to timing 
concerns raised by manufacturers, but ultimately did not find that 
compelling reasons were presented to justify a phase-in period. 
However, in acknowledgment that some EDRs will require changes to meet 
the requirements of this final rule, the agency is doubling the 
initially proposed lead time to provide manufacturers with sufficient 
time to make the minor modifications adopted in this final rule. In 
support of this decision, NHTSA is aware that manufacturers across the 
globe can meet much shorter EDR lead times in other markets, such as 
Europe and Japan. NHTSA is not aware of any peculiarities of the U.S. 
market that would necessitate lead times double, triple, or quadruple 
the lead times in other markets.
    NHTSA also acknowledges the concern raised by some commenters that 
manufacturers may choose to deactivate EDRs because of their inability 
to meet the requirements within the proposed 1-year lead time. NHTSA 
does not share that concern, and in any event, this final rule's 
extended lead time, which provides additional flexibility to 
manufacturers, should mitigate this concern. However, this final rule 
does not change the voluntary nature of part 563, and manufacturers 
remain free to decide if their vehicle will have EDR functionality 
based on their own considerations. Although the system that activates 
air bags in a vehicle may share resources with the EDR functionality, 
we emphasize that the performance of systems that deploy air bags 
(e.g., supplemental restraint system) to mitigate injuries in a crash 
should not be negatively affected in order to develop an EDR that meets 
today's new requirements.

IV. Final Rule and Response to Comments

    NHTSA received 21 comments on the proposed rule from a wide variety 
of commenters, including: advocacy groups, supplier and trade 
associations, vehicle manufacturers, manufacturer associations, 
insurance institutes, industry association consultants, engineer 
organizations, and members of the public.
    The safety advocacy groups included the Advocates for Highway & 
Auto Safety (Advocates) and the Center for Auto Safety (CAS). The 
supplier and trade associations included Robert Bosch LLC and Bosch 
Automotive Service Solutions (Bosch) and MEMA. Manufacturers and 
manufacturer associations included Nissan Motor Co., LTD. (Nissan), 
Ford Motor Company (Ford), American Honda Motor Co. (Honda), General 
Motors Company (GM), and Auto Innovators. Insurance institutes and 
industry associations commenting on the NPRM included the National 
Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), State Farm Insurance 
Companies (State Farm), and joint comments from the Insurance Institute 
for Highway Safety (IIHS) and Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI). The 
consultants and engineering organizations included the Event Data 
Recorder Committee of SAE International (SAE), the Collision Safety 
Institute (CSI), and QuantivRisk, Inc. NHTSA also received comment from 
the NTSB, and four comments from members of the public.
    Overall, safety advocates (CAS and Advocates), insurance institutes 
and industry associations (NAMIC, IIHS-HLDI, and State Farm), NTSB, and 
three public commentors generally supported the proposed amendment. 
However, they recommended NHTSA consider expanding part 563 
requirements through such additions as new data elements for emerging 
safety systems like advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) and 
automated driving systems (ADS), increased vehicle weight limits 
applicable to all newly manufactured passenger vehicles, and a revised 
trigger threshold to include crashes involving vulnerable road users. 
These commenters also expressed support for the agency's work with 
international organizations to harmonize EDR requirements, including 
groups like the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE), 
the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29), and 
EDR technical working groups (e.g., SAE International).
    Other commenters questioned and criticized some aspects of the 
NPRM, including the proposed lead time and estimated costs. Commenters 
in this group included vehicle manufacturers and manufacturer 
associations, industry suppliers and trade associations (including 
MEMA), industry experts and engineering organizations (SAE, CSI, and 
QRI), and one individual member of the public. Several commenters 
indicated the NPRM's proposed lead time was insufficient and suggested 
longer lead times.
    The following sections address the key issues raised by commenters 
in response to the NPRM, including concerns related to the recording 
duration and frequency (or sample rate), the EDR duration study, EDR 
components, additional data elements, privacy, benefits, costs, and 
other expressed concerns.

A. Recording Duration and Sampling Rate

    The agency sought comment on the NPRM's proposal to increase the 
EDR pre-crash recording duration and sample rates under part 563. 
Comments received expressed mixed views, with many comments critical of 
the proposal and expressing strong concerns with the EDR Duration 
study, suggesting that the NPRM's extended duration proposal should not 
have relied upon the study's findings.
General Comments
    Several commenters did not support the NPRM's proposal to extend 
part 563's recording duration requirements, expressing skepticism that 
recording data beyond current part 563 requirements would improve crash 
causation investigations. SAE, referencing the agency's technical 
report on ``Characteristics of Fatal Rollover Crashes,'' \25\ 
acknowledged that rollover

[[Page 102816]]

crashes generally require a longer amount of recorded data but stated 
they do not justify the added duration of pre-crash data. SAE explained 
that increasing recording duration will, in almost all cases, merely 
represent static operating conditions. Ford stated that additional 
studies on vehicles with active safety features and EDRs compliant with 
part 563 are necessary to more accurately determine any anticipated 
safety benefit of extending the pre-crash recording duration at a 
higher sampling rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ DOT HS 809 438 (SAE stated the report concluded that EDR 
data are proven as a valuable source to determine vehicle speed, 
evasive maneuvers, and passenger status).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GM, commenting that it already voluntarily added 3 seconds of pre-
crash data to its latest Generation EDR, stated eight seconds of pre-
crash data is more than sufficient to understand crash dynamics and 
vehicle performance based on its experience working with accident 
reconstructionists, police, and other authorities.
    CSI stated there is no need to increase EDR recording duration, but 
suggested the sample rate could be phased in over a longer lead time to 
allow for other revisions to part 563. Bosch indicated the current data 
sample rate of 2 Hz may not capture all data when a multi-impact crash 
occurs but emphasized that an increased sample rate would require 
significant changes in EDR hardware and software. Bosch agreed that 
increased pre-crash data frequency could capture additional events, 
such as braking interventions, lane change maneuvers, and steering 
maneuvers.
    Ford, seeking to clarify information cited by the agency in the 
proposal, also stated that although the EDR in the referenced 2007 Ford 
\26\ was capable of recording more than 20 seconds of pre-crash data, 
it did not meet the crash test performance and survivability 
requirements of part 563. Ford explained that the pre-crash data in the 
2007 Ford was stored in the Powertrain Control Module (PCM), which 
served as a diagnostics tool not equipped with a power energy reserve. 
Ford stated it later replaced the PCM recording capability with a part 
563-compliant EDR that uses the Restraint Control Module (RCM) to 
record PCM data for 5 seconds prior to a crash event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ NHTSA, Special Crash Investigation No. IN10013, available 
at https://crashviewer.nhtsa.dot.gov/nass-sci/GetBinary.aspx?Report&ReportID=804261920&CaseID=804261915&Version=-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters supported some or all aspects of the proposal, 
stating it would provide more information for crash investigations and 
safety data. IIHS-HLDI stated it would provide researchers with a 
greater understanding of the role different factors like vehicle, 
driver, and roadway/environment play leading up to a crash. NAMIC 
agreed more pre-crash data would help insurers, researchers, 
manufacturers, and regulators understand and determine crash causation, 
while also helping crash avoidance research. NAMIC also stated that the 
benefits of more pre-crash data on vehicle dynamics and system status, 
driver inputs, vehicle crash signatures, restraint usage/deployment 
status, and post-crash data, such as the activation of an automatic 
collision notification system, would provide greater safety value than 
any associated costs with increased memory capacity and potential EDR 
unit redesigns. State Farm supported the proposed duration and 
frequency changes to EDRs, and suggested vehicles should at minimum 
record all available information relevant to the crash.
    Many commenters supported extending recorded categories rather than 
extending the duration and/or sampling rate of existing part 563 data 
retention requirements to improve crash analysis. The NTSB stated 
although the proposed rule addresses data elements currently in part 
563, a complete understanding of crashes involving vehicles with ADAS 
would necessitate more pre-crash data than is currently required. CAS 
stated that even longer durations and higher sample frequencies could 
be beneficial for data not currently included in part 563, such as 
progressive sensor degradation, object event detection, response 
processing, and performance of sensor and data processing components.

EDR Duration Study

    Many commenters criticized the NPRM's reliance on the EDR Duration 
Study's finding that 20 seconds of pre-crash data encompasses the 90th 
percentile recording duration necessary to capture the initiation of 
driver actions. SAE stated the study failed to demonstrate that the 
recommended 20-second recording duration would improve crash causation 
investigations. SAE further stated that the study focused on 
determining the duration necessary to assess driver behavior, rather 
than crash causation, and reiterated its previous comments critiquing 
the study.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ SAE provided comments and presented to NHTSA in response to 
the EDR Duration Study. See NHTSA-2022-0021-0005 and NHTSA-2022-
0021-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, SAE stated the study should have assessed more than 
the speed, braking, and steering actions of the vehicle, noting that 
engine throttle percentage, accelerator pedal percentage, engine RPM, 
cruise control status, anti-lock braking system (ABS) activity, lateral 
acceleration, and yaw rate are all useful data elements when studying 
the cause of a crash event. SAE also stated the vehicles in the study 
lacked modern safety features, such as pre-collision braking and 
electronic stability control, which could have prevented some of the 
accidents or provided intervention within the current recording 
duration of 5 seconds.
    SAE asserted the study contained flawed assumptions about current 
automotive braking system architectures. SAE also stated there were two 
false assumptions concerning steering input. First, SAE explained the 
EDR Duration Study concluded that the availability of steering angle 
data, an optional data element, was very limited, thus reducing its 
significance in Phase I of the study. Second, SAE stated the study 
assigned steering angle data the same importance as the other data 
elements, and that the study's authors erroneously assumed a weighted 
distribution would compensate for the small number of cases with 
steering input. In response to this assumption, SAE stated actual 
field-related data from more recent part 563 compliant vehicles 
covering a wider range of manufacturers should have been used, and that 
the study's analysis should have been updated with current systems 
data. SAE also discussed the resolution of the steering input data, 
explaining that some pre-part 563 EDRs reported steering input data 
with a range of +/- 16 degrees, meaning a steering maneuver beyond 16 
degrees would need to be made to be detected and recorded in the EDR. 
SAE stated that depending on vehicle speed, a steering input of less 
than 16 degrees could have significance in relation to vehicle 
dynamics; however, if no such recorded input occurred, the study 
concluded the driver was not moving the steering wheel.
    SAE also critiqued the study's lack of distinction between 
accelerator pedal position and engine throttle position, stating it 
purposely ignored EDR data recorded more than 5 seconds before a crash, 
and further stated that if all 8 seconds of pre-crash data, where 
available, were reviewed, the study could have confirmed whether the 
service brake was on at 5 seconds prior to a crash event. SAE explained 
this information could demonstrate whether pre-crash data beyond 5 
seconds would change overall reconstruction results. Finally, in 
relation to the study's 1-Hz

[[Page 102817]]

recording frequency in older vehicles, SAE and Auto Innovators stated 
brake pedal application can occur multiple times within one second, and 
state changes could be missed in the sample period. Several commenters 
expressed support for SAE's comments on the study.
Agency Response
    This final rule adopts the NPRM's proposed part 563 EDR pre-crash 
data recording and frequency durations. This final rule's 
implementation will fulfill the FAST Act mandate and provide additional 
information on the status of vehicle systems and the actions taken 
prior to a crash.
General Comments
    The agency acknowledges criticisms raised by several commenters, 
including suggestions that further studies are needed to determine the 
safety benefits of additional EDR pre-crash data. However, NHTSA is 
confident the EDR Duration Study provides a solid basis for this final 
rule's increase to 20 seconds of pre-crash data based on the study's 
findings on the amount of pre-crash actions missed in the 5 seconds 
prior to a recorded event by the EDR, particularly for in-road 
departure and intersection crashes. The EDR Duration Study found part-
563's 5-second recording duration insufficient to record important 
information in a substantial percentage of crashes in which the EDR is 
triggered. This information, including the initiation of crash 
avoidance driving maneuvers, e.g., pre-crash braking, would assist 
investigators with crash reconstruction. The study also found that 20 
seconds of pre-crash data would encompass the 90th percentile recording 
duration required for the three crash modes and the crash avoidance 
maneuvers analyzed.
    In support of the increased frequency requirement of this final 
rule, NHTSA understands some manufacturers already equip vehicles with 
EDRs that record data at 5 or 10 Hz, and in some cases multiple rates. 
NHTSA agrees with commenters who expressed support for the proposed 
increase by stating the increased frequency could capture events like 
braking interventions, lane change maneuvers, and steering maneuvers 
that may be missed at 2 Hz.
    In response to Ford's comment regarding the 2007 Ford vehicle 
included in the EDR Technology Study \28\ and referenced in the NPRM, 
the agency is aware that the EDR in question was manufactured prior to 
the implementation of part 563. The agency did not reference it in the 
NPRM as a basis to state that all current EDRs are capable of recording 
20 seconds of data. Instead, it serves as an example to show that 
manufacturers have already developed systems that record more than 5 
seconds of pre-crash data. Finally, in response to comments encouraging 
the recording of additional data elements, this topic falls outside the 
scope of the NPRM and will not be addressed in this rulemaking. The 
agency may address the recording of additional data elements, including 
ADAS system status and performance parameters, in future rulemaking. 
Additional details on the estimated benefits of this final rule are 
discussed in section V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Gabler, H.C., Tsoi, A., Hinch, J., Ruth, R., Bowman, D., & 
Winterhalter, M. (2020, June). Light-vehicle event data recorder 
technologies (Report No. DOT HS 812 929). National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDR Duration Study
    Many comments received criticized certain aspects of the EDR 
Duration Study and the NPRM's reliance on it in extending the recording 
duration of part 563. The agency does not find these arguments 
compelling. The study adequately met the FAST Act's mandate to conduct 
a study to determine the amount of time event data recorders installed 
in passenger motor vehicles should capture and record for retrieval 
vehicle-related data in conjunction with an event to provide sufficient 
information to investigate the cause of motor vehicle crashes.
    Specifically, as required by the FAST Act, the study presented the 
durations necessary to provide sufficient information to investigate 
the cause of motor vehicle crashes. The agency does not agree with 
comments stating that the study incorrectly focused on driver actions 
rather than crash causation. The FAST Act required the agency to 
address data needed to assess crash causation. As such, vehicle 
dynamics were not the focus of the EDR Duration Study. Crash causation 
is crucial for effective crash investigation. Because many studies, 
some using police-accident reports \29\ or EDR data, have shown that 
driver error is often the cause of crashes,\30\ an understanding of 
pre-crash vehicle actions is critical to determining an appropriate 
recording duration. One study used the crashes in the Naturalistic 
Driving Study (NDS) to determine that driver error contributed to 93% 
of observed crashes.\31\ In the EDR Duration Study, ``behavior'' is 
used synonymously with ``action.'' Therefore, the study's objective in 
Phase II was to determine a recording duration that provides more 
certainty of capturing the complete duration of pre-crash actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Singh, Santokh. Critical reasons for crashes investigated 
in the national motor vehicle crash causation survey. No. DOT HS 812 
115. 2015.
    \30\ Dingus, Thomas A., et al. ``Driver crash risk factors and 
prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data.'' Proceedings 
of the National Academy of Sciences 113.10 (2016): 2636-2641.
    \31\ Khattak, Asad J., et al. ``A taxonomy of driving errors and 
violations: Evidence from the naturalistic driving study.'' Accident 
Analysis & Prevention 151 (2021): 105873.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to SAE's critique that speed, braking, and steering 
were studied exclusive to each other in Phase 1 of the EDR Duration 
Study and not with the rest of the EDR data, NHTSA acknowledges SAE's 
comment that crash reconstructionists analyze vehicle speed in 
conjunction with brake status. However, these two factors were not 
combined in Phase 1 because the study successfully addressed the 
research questions without studying whether enough brake pedal pressure 
was being applied to decelerate the vehicle. The study analyzed each 
pre-crash action individually because the study's objective focused on 
whether any braking input, steering input, or accelerator release 
occurred.
    NHTSA also acknowledges SAE's statement that the study assumed the 
Service Brake On indicator signified driver intent to actively brake 
the vehicle, when it could instead be related to disengaging cruise 
control status or a slightly engaged brake pedal (e.g., resting a foot 
on the pedal). In response to this comment, NHTSA states the EDR 
Duration Study solely focused on the pre-crash action itself, 
regardless of whether that action resulted in decreased vehicle speed. 
As such, any braking action can still be considered a valid pre-crash 
action of the driver.
    In response to SAE's comment that weighted distributions were 
incorrectly used to compensate for the small number of cases with 
steering input in Phase I, NHTSA disagrees. Weighted distributions were 
used as the standard result format for all the data elements in the 
study, regardless of the sample size. Additionally, NASS-CDS data are 
designed for use in a weighted fashion because of its nationally 
representative structure.
    In criticizing the study, SAE and Auto Innovators commented that 
the EDR Duration Study assumed that no recorded steering input meant 
the driver was not moving the steering wheel, but that pre-part 563 
EDRs required a steering input change of more than 16 degrees to be 
captured by the EDR so active steering maneuvers in the dataset

[[Page 102818]]

may not have been captured. The EDR Duration Study could only use the 
EDR data available (which included pre-part 563 EDRs) to evaluate what 
pre-crash actions were captured. The study assumed that if a non-zero 
steering angle was recorded at -5 s, the initiation of a pre-crash 
steering maneuver was not captured. NHTSA does not believe that the 
current resolution for steering input (5 degrees) would change the 
results of Phase 1 of the EDR Duration Study since the authors defined 
the steering input time as the time between the event and the earliest 
non-zero steering angle recorded. NHTSA agrees that, based on vehicle 
speed, a change in steering input less than the 16-degree resolution 
could be significant.
    In response to comments on the issue of whether the accelerator 
pedal position or engine throttle position was used to assess driver 
action, the EDR Duration Study used the accelerator pedal position to 
indicate a depressed pedal, as the objective of the study was driver 
action prior to crash. NHTSA acknowledges that accelerator pedal 
position and engine throttle position do not always correspond 
(especially given modern vehicles with drive-by-wire technology). The 
study used accelerator pedal position as it is related to the driver's 
input, whereas the engine throttle position can lag behind that input. 
NHTSA also acknowledges SAE's comment that the EDR Duration Study 
ignored data extending beyond 5 seconds. Specifically, where EDRs 
recorded 8 seconds of pre-crash data in the study, the results were 
truncated to 5 seconds to combine them with the remainder of the 
dataset that only had 5 seconds of pre-crash data to make the brake 
pedal, accelerator pedal, and steering input data consistent. Doing so 
is consistent with the 5 seconds of pre-crash data required by part 563 
prior to this final rule. This was done in Phase 1, as this part of the 
study evaluated whether 5 seconds of data was sufficient for capturing 
the initiation of pre-crash maneuvers in rear-end, road departure and 
intersection crashes. The authors of the EDR Duration Study could not 
use EDR data to determine the duration beyond 5 seconds needed to 
capture crash causation, because most EDR data only records 5 seconds 
of pre-crash data per the minimum requirements in part 563. Therefore, 
as required by the FAST Act, to determine the amount of time event data 
recorders installed in passenger motor vehicles should capture and 
record for retrieval vehicle-related data in conjunction with an event 
to provide sufficient information to investigate the cause of motor 
vehicle crashes, Phase 2 of the study used two naturalistic driving 
studies (NDS) (100-Car NDS and SHRP-2 NDS). These studies were used 
because they include more than 5 seconds of data prior to an event.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The two NDS studies used in the EDR Duration study 
collected data in normal driving conditions over the course of 
millions of trips and miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, although some commenters stated that older vehicles used 
in the study had EDR data recorded at a sample rate less than the part 
563 requirements (2 Hz), the EDR Duration Study acknowledged the 
uncertainties of the sample rate (1 Hz vs. 2 Hz) of data numerous times 
throughout the report. The study's results were presented in terms of 
the observed EDR data, the ``Lower Bound,'' and ``Upper Bound,'' which 
assumed the actual pre-crash action for EDRs recording at 1 Hz was one 
time step earlier than the reported time (e.g., if an initial braking 
action occurred at -4 s the action was assumed to occur at -5 s). NHTSA 
believes that presenting the results in this corridor fashion was 
appropriate and provided a fair and transparent representation of the 
range of times the driver action may have occurred. In response to SAE 
and Auto Innovators' comments that a pre-crash braking action can occur 
multiple times within the time span of 1 second (1 Hz) or 0.5 seconds 
(2 Hz), NHTSA notes that this fact supports increasing the recording 
frequency of pre-crash data, as required by this final rule, so that 
multiple pre-crash actions are captured by the EDR.
    NHTSA also acknowledges comments received stating that the vehicles 
used in the study lacked modern safety features that could have 
prevented some crashes and provided intervention within 5 seconds of 
the crash event. However, NHTSA observes the available EDR data used in 
the study did not generally include any details on active safety 
features, as part 563 does not require the capturing of those elements, 
which are at times voluntarily recorded by manufacturers. Therefore, 
any pre-crash data related to modern safety features could not be 
included as part of the research in Phase 1 of the study.
    NHTSA does not know if active safety features will be universally 
adopted in future vehicles or recorded for the purposes of crash 
reconstruction. However, NHTSA points out that ABS and electronic 
stability control (ESC) were studied in Phase 2 of the EDR Duration 
Study, which used naturalistic driving data from newer vehicles. The 
ABS activation times in that data ranged from 2-9 seconds prior to the 
crash, further demonstrating that a 5-second duration is not always 
sufficient to capture all the pre-crash actions of the vehicle. 
Finally, some comments criticizing the EDR Duration study addressed 
areas outside the scope of this rulemaking and the research questions 
and conclusions made by the study, such as how beneficial the 
additional data will be when used with vehicle dynamics for crash 
reconstruction and that pre-crash data would benefit more from 
additional data elements rather than extending the time capture pre-
crash. As such, the agency is not addressing these comments in this 
final rule.

B. EDR Components

EDR Comments Overview
    The agency sought comment on whether the NPRM's proposed changes 
would affect current EDRs, including in terms of creating any increased 
memory needs, processor speed burdens, or other issues not considered 
by the proposal. Many commenters, including OEMs, manufacturers' 
associations, industry suppliers, trade associations, industry experts, 
and engineer organizations generally agreed that while the proposed 20 
seconds of pre-crash data could be recorded by EDRs, some EDRs may 
require significant hardware and software changes to meet these 
demands. Commenters stated the memory (RAM and read-only Memory (ROM)), 
energy reserve, and microprocessor (or microcontroller) of EDRs may all 
need to be upgraded or expanded. Bosch stated that some manufacturers 
may have EDRs capable of accommodating the new requirements using 
current hardware. Nissan suggested that some of its EDR modules could 
record for 20 seconds without requiring hardware changes, given enough 
time for testing and development.
Agency Response
    Following careful consideration of comments received, this final 
rule is extending the EDR recording period for timed data metrics from 
5 seconds of pre-crash data at a frequency of 2 Hz to 20 seconds of 
pre-crash data at a frequency of 10 Hz. NHTSA acknowledges some current 
EDRs may require significant hardware and software changes to meet this 
final rule's recording requirements. However, the changes made by this 
final rule are necessary to fulfill the Fast Act's requirement that the 
agency ``shall promulgate regulations to establish the appropriate 
period during which event data recorders installed in passenger

[[Page 102819]]

motor vehicles may capture and record for retrieval vehicle-related 
data to the time necessary to provide accident investigators with 
vehicle-related information pertinent to crashes involving such motor 
vehicles.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Public Law 114-94, 2015 HR 22, Public Law 114-94, December 
4, 2015, 129 Stat 1312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the data submitted to NHTSA by vehicle manufacturers and 
EDR records available from CISS, many newer EDRs already have 
sufficient memory, processing performance, and reserve energy capacity 
to capture and record 20 seconds of pre-crash data at 10 Hz. If 
necessary, manufacturers could potentially reconfigure these EDRs by 
reallocating memory to meet the new recording requirements for pre-
crash data in this final rule, as the reallocation of memory would not 
entail any additional energy or processor capability. NHTSA 
acknowledges the subject systems would still need to undergo 
development and testing to ensure they function as intended with no 
adverse effect on the activation of air bags in a crash event with air 
bag deployment.
    The agency is aware that memory is not solely used to record EDR 
data, as it is shared by other functions of the ACM. However, many 
modern EDRs, particularly those updated to meet UN ECE Regulation No. 
160,\34\ likely already have sufficient capability to meet the pre-
crash recording duration and sample rate requirements of this final 
rule without disrupting how EDR data are currently recorded. Based on 
the CISS EDR data available, NHTSA is aware of at least one 
manufacturer that has made such EDR upgrades to a large portion of its 
newer models, such that only software changes would be needed to comply 
with the final rule.\35\ Further, EDRs that currently capture and 
record more than 1600 bytes of pre-crash data could allocate resources 
to, at minimum, record the three required Table I data elements for 20 
seconds at 10 Hz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ UN ECE Regulation No. 160 requires all new types of M1 and 
N1 vehicles in Europe to have an EDR beginning July 6, 2022, and 
further requires all new vehicles to have an EDR beginning July 7, 
2024. Table 1 in Annex 4 of UN R160 lists twenty-three mandatory 
pre-crash data elements to be captured by the EDR.
    \35\ For example, EDR records from vehicle 2 in CISS Case 
Number: 1-20-2022-129-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional analysis on comments received and the agency's response 
in the areas of EDR memory, data processing, energy reserve, design, 
and the development process is provided below.
Memory
Comments
    Many commenters indicated the current amount of non-volatile memory 
in EDRs may not be sufficient to record 20 seconds of pre-crash data 
captured at 10 Hz. The NPRM indicated an increase in pre-crash 
recording duration from 5 seconds to 20 seconds with an accompanying 
increase in recording frequency from 2 Hz to 10 Hz, would require 1.33 
kilobytes (kB) of additional memory (a factor of 2.43 increase from the 
baseline) if all 7 pre-crash data elements were recorded. However, SAE 
stated some suppliers estimated the memory would increase by a factor 
of 8.5. SAE explained that adding more memory to meet the new data 
capture requirements would involve a complex process, as reallocating 
memory from other data elements would require an entire development 
process for each type of EDR.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Manufacturers typically have more than one type of EDR 
installed across their vehicle models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GM stated that to meet the proposed requirements in the NPRM, the 
memory for its latest generation EDR would have to increase from 
approximately 720 bytes per recorded event to 8260 bytes, or an 
increase by a factor of approximately 11.5 based on 46 pre-crash data 
elements. GM explained this estimate must be multiplied by 3 to account 
for 3 separate EDR-recorded event buffers. GM further stated it is 
desirable to have a consistent sampling rate for all pre-crash data 
elements to reduce software complexity, and that it does not have a 
design in production that can simply incorporate the requirements in 
spare memory.
    GM explained memory allocation is one of the first steps of new 
product development, used to determine the specifications for the 
microprocessor, memory storage size and type, energy reserve, and power 
supply, and that changes to the type of memory required would have a 
significant impact on the design specifications for EDRs. Honda, 
Nissan, and Ford also stated that meeting the requirements proposed in 
the NPRM would require additional non-volatile memory. CSI and MEMA 
stated memory estimates should consider that the ACM and any other 
system housing the EDR shares processor power and memory with the EDR, 
and that additional memory is rarely available in existing systems. 
QuantivRisk, Inc. and CSI also stated that adding memory would require 
additional development and testing costs.
Agency Response
    NHTSA acknowledges comments received from industry, OEMs, and trade 
associations suggesting that EDRs would require more memory than that 
estimated by the NPRM (for both data capture and recording) to meet the 
NPRM's proposed requirements. Necessary memory upgrades could include 
both non-volatile memory for storing the recorded crash data, and 
volatile memory (or RAM) for data processing (read into and write 
over). Currently, part 563's specified recording duration of 5 seconds 
at 2 samples per second generates a total of 11 samples for each pre-
crash data element (2 samples per second x 5 seconds + 1 initial 
sample).
    The EDR Technology Study, reporting on information provided by EDR 
subject experts from OEMs and ACM/EDR suppliers, found a typical 
recorded crash event requires approximately 929 bytes (77 bytes for 
pre-crash data elements) to record all of the Table I and Table II data 
elements for a single event.\37\ Depending on the redundancy strategy 
for data quality control, a typical recorded EDR requires approximately 
1.86 kB per event. To record data for 20 seconds at 10 Hz, 201 samples 
(10 x 20 + 1) would be captured, or an additional 190 samples per pre-
crash data element over the previous requirements of 5 seconds at 2 Hz. 
In total, an additional 1,330 (190 x 7) data points must be captured, 
processed, and recorded per crash event if all 7 pre-crash data 
elements are recorded (Table II lists optional data elements if they 
are recorded by the EDR). An EDR is required to record these elements 
for up to two events in a multi-event crash.\38\ To capture two events, 
the EDR would require an additional 2,660 bytes of memory for the 
additional data, as required by this final rule. Similarly, an equal 
amount of RAM would be needed for data processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Tables 20 and 21 in DOT HS 812 929. Table I data 
elements require 72 bytes and Table II data elements require 857 
bytes.
    \38\ For EDR data capture, part 563 requires the memory for air 
bag deployment events to be locked to prevent any future overwriting 
of the data. For non-air bag deployment events, the EDR can capture 
and record the current data, up to two events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Memory reallocation may be necessary for older generation EDRs to 
meet this final rule's required Table I elements. Additionally, 
manufacturers with EDRs that voluntarily record data elements not 
listed in Tables I and II \39\

[[Page 102820]]

of part 563 may need to reallocate memory if memory allocation is 
nearing capacity or there is insufficient memory to meet the 
requirements of this final rule. However, NHTSA accepts this potential 
as Congress unambiguously signaled its desire for the agency to 
prioritize the time necessary to provide accident investigators 
vehicle-related information pertinent to crashes through the FAST Act 
statutory mandate. This final rule's additional lead time should 
considerably minimize any required memory reallocation. Further, any 
memory reallocation needed to meet the requirements of this final rule 
could potentially be carried out by only capturing those elements 
required by Table I, as only Table I elements must be recorded if an 
EDR is installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Comments received from GM and Honda support the contention 
that some EDRs are recording data beyond the Table I and II part 563 
elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In relation to recording requirements, GM suggested that it is 
preferable to record all pre-crash data elements captured by its latest 
generation EDR, including those required by part 563 and those 
voluntarily captured, at the same sample rate to not increase software 
complexity. However, EDRs that record data elements at different 
recording intervals and data sample rates already exist (e.g., some 
EDRs capture and record data at both 5 s/10 Hz and 5 s/2 Hz). Further, 
although manufacturers may choose to do so, NHTSA is not requiring 
manufacturers to record all pre-crash data at 20 seconds and 10 Hz; 
rather they must only apply that standard to those elements listed in 
Table I and, if recorded, Table II of part 563.
    If an EDR does record numerous data elements not listed in part 563 
at 20 seconds and 10 Hz, NHTSA agrees that the amount of extra memory 
needed to record that data could significantly increase. However, the 
recording of additional elements outside of Table I is not required by 
this final rule, and the minimum amount of extra memory needed to 
record the three pre-crash Table I elements is only approximately 570 
bytes (1,040 bytes if considering two events). The estimate provided by 
the agency for the additional memory needed (2,660 bytes) is for all 7 
mandatory and optional pre-crash data elements captured at 20 s and 10 
Hz, and for the recording of multiple events. The decision to install 
additional memory necessary for data buffering and redundancy is a 
voluntary decision by a manufacturer and is not required by part 563. 
As discussed in the NPRM, many manufacturers already have EDRs with 
sufficient hardware capabilities to capture and record more pre-crash 
data, or will have the time to develop such EDRs given this final 
rule's additional lead time allowing for EDR development and testing/
validation. For example, vehicle models equipped with EDRs containing 
32 kB of flash data storage (memory) or greater should already have 
sufficient capacity to capture the increased amount of pre-crash data 
required by this final rule.
    For EDRs containing insufficient memory to record the data elements 
in Table I and II at this final rule's required recording interval/data 
sample rate, manufacturers may be able meet the new requirements 
through various means. For example, if EDR memory is currently used to 
record other data elements not required in part 563, OEMs could 
reallocate the available memory to record the mandatory data elements 
at 20 seconds and 10 Hz. If no excess memory is available because a 
portion of the memory is used for purposes outside of capturing and 
recording EDR data, modification should not be overly burdensome, as 
only 1.33 kB of additional memory is needed under this final rule to 
record the seven pre-crash data elements. Further, if an OEM solely 
recorded the data elements required by Table I, only approximately 0.57 
kB of additional memory would be needed to meet the requirements of 
this final rule (an increase from 33 samples to 603 samples for Table I 
pre-crash data elements).
    Where memory reallocation is not possible or preferred and 
additional memory is necessary, manufacturers could increase the memory 
capacity of the EEPROM, or embed higher capacity flash memory chips 
with similar costs, since flash memory typically costs less than 
EEPROM.\40\ For example, information from manufacturers in the EDR 
Technology Study indicated a typical 2013 microprocessor used in 
vehicle applications had 32 kB or 64 kB of flash data as part of the 
ACM, and that most companies are replacing the older memory technology 
(EEPROM) with flash memory located on the microprocessor. As previously 
stated, EDRs containing 32 kB of flash data storage (memory) or greater 
should have sufficient capacity to capture the increased amount of pre-
crash data required by this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ NHTSA understands that manufacturers have moved from EEPROM 
to flash memory located on the microprocessor for memory storage. 
The agency did not receive specific comments on how much flash 
memory EDRs are using to record pre-crash for 5 seconds or on the 
amount of memory that would be needed to capture the additional 
data, including additional memory for redundancy. Therefore, it is 
difficult to discuss examples of how the different components would 
need to be upgraded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in response to comments expressing concern that the NPRM 
failed to capture all costs associated with any EDR memory increases 
needed to meet the requirements of this final rule, NHTSA acknowledges 
these concerns and, following careful consideration, has adjusted 
estimated costs accordingly in the Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) 
accompanying this final rule. Additional details on the updated cost 
estimates of this final rule are discussed in section V.
Data Processing
Comments
    Several commenters expressed concern that the proposal would create 
increased data processing needs. SAE and Auto Innovators stated that, 
depending on current microprocessor capacity, the proposed data 
requirements would necessitate additional energy capacity, speed, and 
memory upgrades, which would also require a new microprocessor and 
circuit board. SAE and Auto Innovators indicated these modifications 
would require a complete redesign of the EDR from both a hardware and 
software perspective. GM stated none of its current EDR designs can 
support the 20 second requirement without changes to the 
microprocessor. Honda commented that the NPRM's proposed increases in 
recording duration and frequency will increase the amount of RAM in the 
microcontroller unit (MCU) required to record the data, necessitating a 
physically larger and higher performance MCU. Honda explained that the 
proposed changes would also require the MCU ROM and processor 
performance (e.g., clock frequency) to increase.
Agency Response
    NHTSA acknowledges the concerns raised by several commenters, 
including Honda, GM, SAE, and Auto Innovators, that the proposed 
requirements may necessitate microprocessors with higher clock speeds 
and an increased amount of ROM depending on the performance 
specifications of the current microprocessor used to capture and record 
EDR data. NHTSA also acknowledges comments stating that the NPRM's 
proposed increase in RAM would necessitate a physically larger and 
higher performance microprocessor. However, these changes may only be 
necessary in older generation EDRs or EDRs that are recording data at 
or near the memory capacity. Further, although some older generation 
EDRs may lack the performance specifications needed

[[Page 102821]]

to capture and record the increased duration and frequency of pre-crash 
data required by this final rule (including clock speed of the 
microprocessor, available ROM, RAM, and flash memory), many newer EDRs 
have the necessary MCU specifications to record for 20 seconds. NHTSA 
acknowledges these newer versions would require a period of software 
development to change how data are buffered, written to memory, and 
tested to validate the EDR and ensure that all systems interacting with 
the EDR perform as intended. However, these concerns should be 
alleviated through the additional lead time provided by this final 
rule, which should allow manufacturers to make any EDR design changes 
needed to meet the requirements of this final rule.
Energy Reserve and Design Concerns
Comments
    Several comments stated that the proposal would require increased 
energy reserve. Auto Innovators explained the EDR function is typically 
integrated into a vehicle's ACU or ACM and includes reserve energy to 
successfully deploy the restraint systems, facilitate high voltage 
shutoffs for electric vehicles, and record EDR data into non-volatile 
memory if vehicle power is lost early in the crash event. GM stated the 
increased write time duration would require more energy reserve, and 
that a microprocessor with a higher current draw could affect the 
energy reserve. For many existing units to meet the new requirements, 
Auto Innovators stated that the amount of additional, voluntary data 
elements recorded by the EDR would need to be reduced, or that the air 
bag control/EDR module would require redesign to accommodate the 
additional reserve power capacity. Both Auto Innovators and SAE stated 
that many current EDRs record more than the minimum part 563 
requirements, and that these additional data elements would also have 
to be recorded for 20 seconds.
    Several commenters stated the proposed changes would require larger 
and, in some cases, multiple capacitors to meet the extended pre-crash 
recording period, as the EDR module operates under its own power supply 
during a crash. Commenters indicated larger capacitors pose engineering 
challenges in terms of lifespan, durability, and ability to charge 
during normal operation. Auto Innovators stated the additional energy 
capacity required to meet the new requirements would considerably 
increase the footprint of the ACU/EDR, and that enough physical space 
may not exist in optimum locations for current vehicles (selected for 
crash sensing and durability) to accommodate increases in ACU/EDR size. 
Commenters explained needed changes to the size of the module could 
require redesign and affect placement in the vehicle, increasing design 
complexity and increasing costs for both consumers and manufacturers.
Agency Response
    The ACU requires reserve energy (provided by capacitors) in the 
event of a loss of battery power in the vehicle. This reserve energy 
exists for the EDR to capture and record data, while also ensuring the 
vehicle's air bags can properly deploy. NHTSA acknowledges several 
comments received from industry stating that meeting the proposed EDR 
requirements may necessitate capacitors with increased capacitance, 
which may in turn require overall hardware changes and potential design 
changes to the EDR. However, none of the comments received stated that 
additional power was necessary across all EDR modules, instead only 
suggesting that more power may be required.
    Based on comments received, NHTSA understands that some 
manufacturers equip EDRs that voluntarily record pre-crash data 
elements not listed as part of the minimum requirements in part 563. 
Any data elements not listed in part 563 that a manufacturer may choose 
to capture are not required to be recorded for 20 seconds at 10 Hz. A 
large amount of voluntarily recorded pre-crash data all recorded at 20 
seconds could increase the amount of reserve energy required to write 
to memory and provide backup power, which could necessitate redesign of 
the EDR packaging. However, as previously stated, NHTSA is only 
requiring EDRs to record the three pre-crash data elements in Table I 
and the four pre-crash data elements in Table II (if they are recorded 
by the EDR) for 20 seconds. Although manufacturers may prefer to record 
all data at the same duration and sample rate, there are examples of 
EDRs in CISS that record data at different durations and sample rates. 
Manufacturers are of course free to record voluntarily captured 
elements as they prefer.
    Based on NHTSA's analysis, the costs of capacitors, especially in 
large quantities, is relatively low. For example, an EDR capacitator 
upgrade from 3.3 [mu]F to 10.0 [mu]F would cost approximately $0.02 per 
unit, based on market research.\41\ Further, EDRs with sufficient 
memory capacity to allow for some memory reallocation would not require 
an increase in reserve energy. The physical size of capacitors can vary 
according to many different constraints such as: manufacturer, 
dielectric type, target application, mounting style, capacitance, 
voltage rating. Based on NHTSA's research, there are 6.8 [mu]F 
capacitors and a 10.0 [mu]F capacitors with similar specifications 
beside capacitance that have the same physical dimensions in terms of 
diameter and surface mount area. Varying other parameters (e.g., 
voltage rating) only changes the physical dimensions of these 
capacitors by 1 mm or less. Ultimately, the manufacturer chooses where 
to place the EDR housing within its vehicles. NHTSA has included cost 
estimates that cover software development and design validation but 
does not believe such small hardware components will significantly 
affect the size of the physical casing that holds the electronic 
components of the EDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Based on quotes from DigiKey, the average unit price for 
3.3 [mu]F capacitors is $0.11 and the average unit price for 10.0 
[mu]F capacitors is $0.13. Therefore, $0.02 was used as the upgrade 
cost for reserve energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, this final rule adopts the NPRM's proposal to extend the 
EDR recording period for timed data metrics from 5 seconds of pre-crash 
data to 20 seconds of pre-crash data at a frequency of 10 Hz. 
Manufacturers should be able to meet these requirements given the lead 
time and relatively low cost of capacitors to implement any required 
upgrades.
Development and Validation
Comments
    SAE and Auto Innovators stated that in addition to costs incurred 
from the proposed EDR component upgrades, the proposal would also 
require associated development and integration costs, including 
validation and testing at component, sub-system, and vehicle levels. 
These commenters stated that costs and associated lead times are 
further amplified because the EDR application is most often coupled 
with a safety restraint management system requiring rigorous safety 
system validation and verification. Nissan, explaining it confirms the 
functionality of the EDR in coordination with other compliance crash 
tests completed in less than 20 seconds, commented that the proposal 
would require additional or new crash test procedures to retrieve data 
from a vehicle. SAE commented that capturing 20 seconds of data would 
require a crash test facility over 985 feet

[[Page 102822]]

long, and that no such test facility currently exists. GM also 
expressed concerns in relation to vehicle level validation, asking if 
the proposal would require a crash of sufficient length to encompass 
the entire 20 seconds of pre-crash data. GM explained that such a 
requirement would impact vehicle barrier facilities and testing 
protocol, resulting in additional costs.
Agency Response
    Several commenters expressed concerns that the proposed rule would 
incur new costs, including for a new crash test facility and additional 
or new crash test procedures to record and retrieve the appropriate 
amount of data. In response, the agency points out that vehicles do not 
have to operate at the speeds specified for crash testing under such 
scenarios as FMVSS No. 208 or FMVSS No. 214 to meet the new EDR 
recording requirements of this final rule. New or altered test 
procedures may be needed to validate the EDR, but manufacturers should 
not need new crash test facilities to meet the new data capture 
requirements. Manufacturers may instead use other means that do not 
require the vehicle to travel at crash test speeds (i.e., 56 kph or 35 
mph) for 20 seconds to capture pre-crash data as testing validation for 
this final rule's data capture requirements. For example, tests may be 
conducted by initially operating the vehicle at a minimum speed before 
acceleration or by idling the vehicle prior to accelerating to the 
speeds necessary for other crash tests. The availability of these 
alternative options and the extended lead time provided by this final 
rule will help mitigate any potential incurred costs.

C. Additional Data Elements

Comments
    Many commenters stated that part 563 should include the recording 
of additional ADAS/ADS data elements to improve EDR data effectiveness. 
Commenters stated the incorporation of new crash avoidance, pre-crash, 
and post-crash data elements would provide a greater safety value to 
improve driver-assistive safety technologies compared with increased 
recording duration and frequency. Several commenters recommended that a 
standard format for capturing and reporting data related to advanced 
safety systems should be defined and included as part of the EDR 
requirements. Some commenters encouraged NHTSA to follow a similar path 
to the European Union's (EU) recent mandate requiring the equipping of 
new vehicles with EDRs that record ADAS elements. Bosch recommended the 
use of other recorders to record information like driver and ADS state 
to determine the control of the vehicle before an event triggering EDR 
recording, such as the Data Storage System for Automated Driving 
(DSSAD) recommended by the UN ECE, or the SAE ADS data logger (SAE 
J3197).
Agency Response
    While NHTSA agrees with commenters that additional data elements 
may be beneficial for collision reconstruction, this topic falls 
outside the scope of this rulemaking. The NPRM did not address the 
addition of any new data elements, and the rulemaking responds to the 
FAST Act's instruction to promulgate regulations establishing the 
appropriate amount of time that EDRs should capture and record data.
    The agency may address the recording of additional data elements, 
including ADAS system status and performance parameters, in future 
rulemaking. Manufacturers may of course continue to include or add pre-
crash data elements outside of those listed in part 563 \42\ to EDRs 
but must also comply with this final rule. Manufacturers may also 
continue to log data from modern safety features in other vehicle 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Examples of some pre-crash data elements not listed in part 
563 but recorded by some 2021 EDR-equipped light vehicles include: 
adaptive cruise control status, AEB status, brake pedal position, 
cruise control status, drive mode, forward collision warning, 
ignition status, lane departure warning, road departure mitigation 
status, tire pressure status, traction control system status, and 
wheel speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Privacy Considerations

Comments
    As explained in the NPRM, the DOT Privacy Office has determined 
that this rulemaking does not create privacy risk because no new or 
substantially changed technology will collect, maintain, or disseminate 
information in an identifiable form. NHTSA requested comment on this 
determination.
    In response to this request, SAE stated that when part 563 was 
initially proposed it specified a recording duration of 8 seconds, 
which the agency reduced to 5 seconds to apply prudent judgment in 
balancing securing data with the privacy rights of an individual 
vehicle operator.\43\ SAE cited the comment submitted by the Electronic 
Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in response to the initial proposal 
of establishing part 563, in which EPIC cited several Fair Information 
Practices (FIPs) limiting data collection based on purpose-specific 
principles and cautioned NHTSA against an incremental expansion of EDR 
data records as mandated policy. SAE stated NHTSA should demonstrate a 
clear public benefit for the proposed increased data capture duration, 
contrasted with a balance of personal privacy. Auto Innovators stated 
that expanding the pre-crash recording time to 20 seconds will capture 
a significant amount of driver behavior, much of which will not have 
any significant impact on the determination of crash causation factors 
that cannot currently be obtained by other crash reconstruction 
methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 71 FR 50998 (Aug. 28, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    The agency emphasizes that EDRs do not record personally 
identifiable data, and captured data are regularly overwritten, except 
for specified crash events meeting the trigger threshold to retain 
data. Increasing the pre-crash recording duration from 5 seconds to 20 
seconds should not increase privacy concerns, as no new or 
substantially changed technology will collect, maintain, or disseminate 
information in an identifiable form. Further, the Driver Privacy Act of 
2015, part of the FAST Act \44\ and implemented after the establishment 
of part 563, states that the owner or lessee of a motor vehicle is the 
owner of the data collected by an EDR. Recorded EDR data may only be 
retrieved for the purpose of improving motor vehicle safety and vehicle 
safety research (provided the data are not personally identifiable), or 
through the vehicle owners' consent or a court or administrative order. 
These privacy protections should alleviate expressed privacy concerns 
while allowing the agency to fulfill the FAST Act's mandate to 
establish the appropriate recording period in NHTSA's EDR regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Public Law 114-94, Sec.  24301-24302, 129 Stat. 1312, 1713-
14 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. International Harmonization

Comments
    Several commenters expressed support for international 
harmonization of EDR functions. Specifically, SAE, Honda, Auto 
Innovators, MEMA, and Bosch stated they support a harmonized approach 
with UN ECE Regulation No. 160.\45\ Commenters noted that UN Regulation 
No. 160-01, which went into effect in July 2024, has adopted additional 
data elements for modern safety technologies. SAE recommended 
maintaining a mandated EDR practice

[[Page 102823]]

consistent with global EDR regulations to ease manufacturers' financial 
burden and avoid penalizing US vehicle buyers. In support of this 
approach, SAE discussed other global requirements, including those of 
Korea (KMVSS 56-2), Japan (J-EDR 2015), China (GB 39732-2020), EU 
(2022/545 based on UN R160), and Russia (Fed article 26 162-03), which 
all require a minimum of 5 seconds of pre-crash data captured at 2 Hz. 
Honda stated it has developed its EDRs to accommodate not only part 563 
requirements, but also the various EDR regulations for China and UN 
R160 (00 and 01 Series).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ UNECE WP.29 has established the EDR/DSSAD Informal Working 
Group (IWG) to develop internationally harmonized performance 
specifications/regulations for EDR functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    NHTSA acknowledges that some other international EDR regulations 
specify a 5 second pre-crash data recording duration at 2 Hz. However, 
the agency has decided to proceed with the extended EDR data recording 
and frequency requirements proposed in the NPRM based on the 
requirements of the FAST Act and the findings of the EDR Duration 
Study, which found that capturing data at an increased recording 
duration and sample rate will enhance certainty when interpreting pre-
crash data, resulting in improved crash investigations. In response to 
comments encouraging international harmonization in such areas as 
additional data elements for modern safety technologies, this topic 
falls outside the scope of the NPRM and will not be addressed in this 
rulemaking. However, the agency may address such topics in future EDR 
rulemakings, following review of the results of ongoing international 
efforts related to EDRs.

F. Other Considerations

Comments
    NHTSA received several other comments generally related to part 
563. One individual supported an increased EDR duration but stated 
there is a need to update part 563's trigger threshold definition. This 
commenter stated that the current trigger threshold, which specifies an 
8 km/h change in vehicle velocity within a 150 ms interval, may not 
capture non-air bag deployment events, such as collisions involving a 
vulnerable road user and a vehicle. IIHS-HLDI provided similar comments 
and suggested modifying part 563 to include automatic emergency braking 
(AEB) activation status as a trigger threshold, as many vehicles are 
equipped with AEB systems. The Institute also stated that adding data 
on vehicle-to-pedestrian collisions would improve roadway design and 
help refine vehicle structures and crash avoidance systems to mitigate 
the severity of those collisions.
    One individual commenter stated part 563 should apply to all newly 
manufactured vehicles, regardless of weight. The commenter explained 
that some newer electric vehicles may weigh more than the applicability 
requirement of an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 lb. and would 
therefore be exempt from complying with part 563.
Agency Response
    Although multiple commenters encouraged additional amendments to 
part 563, these suggestions fall outside the scope of the proposed 
rulemaking and are thus not included in this final rule. However, NHTSA 
may consider additional amendments to part 563 as part of a future 
rulemaking.

V. Summary of Estimated Benefits and Costs

    The requirements specified in this final rule affect vehicle 
manufacturers that produce light vehicles with a GVWR not greater than 
3,855 kg (8,500 pounds) and voluntarily install EDRs in their vehicles. 
This rule also applies to final-stage manufacturers and alterers. Both 
the agency and the public have historically benefited from 
incorporating EDR information into crash and defects investigations, as 
the inclusion of EDR data leads to improved investigations and better 
understanding of injury causes and mechanisms.
    The NPRM stated the proposed increased recording time for the pre-
crash data would provide benefits by helping to ensure that data on the 
initiation of pre-crash actions and maneuvers are captured for most 
crashes. The agency explained this increased data would enhance the 
usefulness of the recorded information, potentially leading to further 
improvements in the safety of current and future vehicles. The agency 
also stated the proposed increase in data recording frequency would 
clarify the interpretation of recorded pre-crash information for crash 
investigators and researchers.
    In relation to costs, the NPRM acknowledged that increasing the 
recording time of the pre-crash data could add additional costs for 
increased memory if an EDR had little or no excess memory in the 
module. In the NPRM, the agency stated it understood that about 99.5 
percent of model year 2021 passenger cars and other vehicles with a 
GVWR of 3,855 kg or less are already equipped with part 563-compliant 
EDRs, that no additional hardware would be required by the proposed 
amendment, and that compliance costs would be negligible. The agency 
sought comment on potential costs and benefits associated with the 
NPRM's proposals.
Comments
    Most commenters stated the proposal to increase the amount of pre-
crash data captured and recorded would result in significant costs, 
including because of the need to upgrade and validate EDRs in vehicles. 
Many OEMs stated that costs would hinder the implementation of the 
proposed final rule, with some citing concerns over whether a real-
world safety gap exists to justify costs incurred. Commenters stated 
the proposed changes would increase memory requirements, resulting in 
an increased overall EDR price. Commenters also stated software and 
hardware changes would be needed to meet the 20-second pre-crash 
capture requirements, including, where necessary, increased capacitance 
to provide power to the EDR and to make necessary changes to the 
printed circuit board.
    Specifically, SAE pointed to a study done by the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) on heavy-duty and commercial data 
recorders, referenced in the NPRM, stating it raised questions 
concerning the applicability of the cost estimates for flash memory. 
SAE also listed the following component changes and costs that must be 
considered for multiple module designs: microprocessor upgrade, 
additional memory (both RAM and nonvolatile memory), energy reserve 
increase, PCB design changes, module housing changes, potential 
mounting changes in vehicle software and hardware engineering design 
and development cost, component validation cost, vehicle validation 
cost for new module designs, and vehicle level recertification.
    GM expressed concerns over the burdens associated with increased 
EDR complexity and the inability of different regions to arrive at a 
more common technical solution, pointing to recently implemented 
worldwide EDR regulations that maintain the 5-second pre-crash 
recording interval and sample rates historically required by part 563. 
GM further stated the cost estimate in the NPRM is not negligible and 
does not fully encompass all the required changes proposed by the NPRM, 
which could include component validation, full vehicle validation, and 
vehicle recertification of the EDR and the Sensing and Diagnostic 
Module.
    Auto Innovators submitted additional comments related to costs 
following the

[[Page 102824]]

closing of the NPRM comment period.\46\ These comments stated that, 
based on member responses, the estimated average cost of development 
and testing to meet the proposed rule would be $8.4 million dollars per 
manufacturer, with an average estimated cost increase of $5.40 per 
vehicle to develop an EDR meeting the proposed rule. Given those 
estimates, Auto Innovators stated that, assuming an average annual 
light duty vehicle production of 16.4 million vehicles for 17 OEMs, the 
cost burden for the first year would be $231.36 million. Auto 
Innovators explained this is the sum of each OEM's development/test 
costs and that, assuming the same annual production took place, the 
annual cost burden following the first year of implementation of the 
final rule would be $88.56 million, based on the annual affected 
vehicle production times the incremental EDR module cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ NHTSA-2022-0021-0025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also stated manufacturers may require vehicle crash 
tests to ensure the data transferred from sensors in the vehicle to the 
EDR are not affected by hardware updates. Commenters stated costs to 
consumers and lead-time implications are especially important because 
of such issues as supply chain disruptions, microchip shortages, high 
inflation, and economic uncertainty. Auto Innovators also stated NHTSA 
should consider equity issues given the average new car price of 
vehicles.
    In support of the proposal, NAMIC commented that the costs to 
increase the recording duration are warranted by the benefits of more 
and better pre-crash data, even if costs in addition to memory are 
required (e.g., redesign for a larger unit, additional RAM, etc.). 
NAMIC stated the proposed changes provide greater safety value than any 
additional costs to the vehicle. CAS stated the price of flash memory 
used to estimate costs in the NPRM was overestimated and that OEMs may 
receive discounts for bulk memory purchases. CAS further stated the 
incremental cost associated with upgrading the memory would not prevent 
the expansion of EDR data storage.
Agency Response
    The agency does not agree with comments expressing skepticism over 
the benefits of the NPRM's proposed increased recording duration and 
frequency requirements. This final rule's requirements will improve 
crash investigations and crash data collection quality, ultimately 
assisting the agency and others in identifying potential opportunities 
for safety improvement in vehicles already on the road, improving 
future vehicle designs, and creating more effective safety regulations. 
The increased information captured by the requirements of this final 
rule will aid not only the agency, but also crash investigators, first 
responders, and others.
    However, following review the agency does find certain comments 
received stating that the NPRM did not consider additional costs 
associated with the NPRM's proposal compelling. As such, NHTSA has 
revised the cost estimates originally provided in the NPRM to include 
two different EDR versions: those solely requiring software changes to 
meet the proposed rule and those requiring both hardware and software 
changes. The updated estimated benefits and costs associated with this 
final rule are detailed below.

A. Benefits

    EDR data are invaluable for improving system performance. EDR data 
improve crash investigations and crash data collection quality, which 
assists safety researchers, vehicle manufacturers, and the agency to 
better understand vehicle crashes and help determine crash 
causation.\47\ Similarly, vehicle manufacturers can use EDR data to 
improve vehicle designs and develop more effective vehicle safety 
countermeasures. For example, as mentioned in the NPRM, the Toyota 
unintended acceleration study \48\ confirmed the significant value of 
EDR pre-crash data.\49\ The agency successfully used this EDR data to 
assist in determining the root cause of the events and to support the 
safety recalls. Further, in 2016, the agency used EDR data to establish 
crash scenarios and vehicle dynamics when evaluating the efficacy of 
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication technologies in an NPRM for 
V2V.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Even though crash investigators gather insightful 
information about the dynamics of crashes, some parameters cannot be 
determined or cannot be as accurately measured (such as the change 
in velocity) by traditional post-crash investigation procedures, 
such as visually examining and evaluating physical evidence, e.g., 
the crash-involved vehicles and skid marks.
    \48\ NHTSA Report No. NHTSA-NVS-2011-ETC, ``Technical Assessment 
of Toyota Electronic Throttle Control (ETC) Systems,'' February 
2011.
    \49\ In March 2010 NHTSA began obtaining data from Toyota EDRs 
as part of its inquiry into allegations of unintended acceleration 
(UA), and as follow-up to the recalls of some Toyota models. The 
study analyzed cases in which the accelerator pedal became stuck or 
entrapped, seeking to determine the root cause of each crash.
    \50\ Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, FMVSS No. 150, 
Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication Technologies for Light Vehicles, 
December 2016, HS 812 359.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements of this final rule will fulfill the outstanding 
need of adequate recording of pre-crash actions for investigation and 
reconstruction without overtasking the vehicle's power and memory needs 
for capturing EDR data. The amendments may also result in foundational 
upgrades to the hardware and software for a modernized EDR, which could 
in turn support the capture and recording of other data elements. This 
final rule's increased recording duration and refined resolution may 
also provide OEMs with more granular pre-crash information that 
manufacturers can use to evaluate and develop improvements for vehicle 
systems. NHTSA acknowledges that, similar to the establishment of part 
563, it is difficult to estimate the exact portion of benefits 
creditable to an increased amount of EDR data after a standard is 
implemented or a safety countermeasure is developed. While stored data 
are valuable in terms of safety research and emergency response, it is 
not easy to quantify how they translate to the improvement of vehicle 
safety. However, increased recording duration and frequency will 
provide many overall benefits to the public, as described below.
Increased Recording Duration
    Per the findings of the EDR Duration Study, the current part 563 
EDR pre-crash recording duration of 5 seconds does not capture the 
initiation of pre-crash braking and steering maneuvers in a substantial 
percentage of cases. Based on the findings of the study a recording 
duration of 20 seconds is required to ensure that the initiation of 
pre-crash actions and maneuvers can be captured for most crashes. The 
three crash modes examined in the EDR Duration Study--rear-end, 
intersection, and roadway departure--comprised about 70 percent of all 
passenger vehicle crashes, annually.\51\ Separately, these crashes 
represent the most prevalent, relatively longer maneuvered times 
required, and relatively severe crashes (based on fatalities). 
Therefore, the newly required 20 second recording time is adequate to 
record the pre-crash actions for almost all crashes given the 
collective frequency of these three crash types and what they 
represent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Derived from the NHTSA report ``Target Crash Population for 
Crash Avoidance Technologies in Passenger Vehicles,'' March 2019, 
DOT HS 812 653.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Increasing the recording duration of pre-crash data will help 
ensure that data on the initiation of crash avoidance driving maneuvers 
are captured for most crashes. This increased recording duration will 
enhance the usefulness of

[[Page 102825]]

the recorded information, potentially leading to further improvements 
in the safety of current and future vehicles. The study also found that 
a better understanding of pre-crash actions will assist in the 
evaluation of emerging crash avoidance systems (e.g., lane departure 
warning, lane keeping assist, forward collision avoidance, automatic 
emergency braking, and intersection safety assistance systems).
    The 20 second extended recording duration will be particularly 
useful in intersection crashes, which have an approach stage as the 
vehicle comes to the intersection and a traversal stage in which the 
vehicle is exposed in the intersection. Based on the EDR Duration 
Study, the currently required 5-second recording duration captures less 
than 1 percent of the total intersection event time, which includes the 
approach and traversal stage. The study found that 15 seconds would 
capture 50 percent of the total intersection event time, and 20 seconds 
would capture 95 percent of the total intersection event time. With 
this final rule's increased recording duration, actions such as running 
a stop sign, rolling stops, or running a red light could be captured in 
full and included in the crash reconstruction when supplemented with 
roadway and traffic control information. In road departure crashes, 
longer durations could also capture any corrective maneuvers by the 
vehicle before the initial road departure.
Increased Recording Frequency
    Currently most EDRs capture pre-crash data at a frequency of 2 Hz. 
However, based on EDR records in the NASS-CDS and CISS (Crash 
Investigation Sampling System) databases, some manufacturers already 
use models that voluntarily capture pre-crash data at 5 Hz or 10 Hz. 
Further, some vehicle manufacturers and suppliers have indicated their 
support for an increased frequency rate. When manufacturers and 
suppliers were asked about near-term plans for EDRs in the EDR 
Technology Study, some respondents expressed interest in adding, 
``higher sampling frequency and longer recording interval for pre-crash 
data, i.e., sampling interval better than \1/10\ of a second.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ DOT HS 812 929, pg. 39. Five vehicle manufacturers and 
three suppliers were interviewed as part of the study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of the benefits of this final rule's amendments to part 
563, an increase in data recording frequency will help clarify the 
interpretation of recorded pre-crash information. For example, rapid 
vehicle control inputs (e.g., brake application and release or rapid 
reversals in steering input of less than 0.5 seconds) may not be logged 
by an EDR that records data at 2 Hz. Although 20 seconds of pre-crash 
data will capture more crash causation information, a refinement in 
acquisition frequency is also needed to assuage data misinterpretation 
concerns. An improved data sampling rate is also needed due to the 
nature of crashes, which can include a quick sequence of events prior 
to a crash that require a vehicle's crash avoidance technologies, such 
as Anti-lock Braking System and Electronic Stability Control, to 
activate quickly. To understand the performance and effectiveness of 
such systems, the sample rate of pre-crash data elements should be 
increased. In addition, as EDR output for pre-crash data elements is 
not synchronized,\53\ including at the previously required sample rate 
of 2 Hz, uncertainty could exist when an investigator is attempting to 
compare data at specific points in time with precision. The higher 
sample rate required by this final rule will reduce this potential 
uncertainty in relation to the relative timing of recorded data 
elements, to better correlate a driver's commands and a vehicle's 
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ While true time synchronization of data originating from 
the vehicle network may not be possible, the increased sample rate 
for pre-crash data elements may reduce the potential uncertainty 
related to the relative timing of data elements, specifically for 
correlating the driver's commands and the vehicle's performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule's increased sample rate will also benefit crash 
causation analysis and pre-crash behavior. For example, additional 
events like momentary highly dynamic steering inputs, ABS, or ESC 
activation that are not recorded at the 2-Hz sample rate could be 
captured at 10 Hz. For multi-impact crash events, a sample rate of 10 
Hz will allow the EDR to better capture the actions that occur when a 
vehicle undergoes a series of events (e.g., lane departure resulting in 
striking an object followed by striking another object in immediate 
succession).
    Further, an increase in recording frequency could help 
investigators better identify where vehicle dynamics prior to a crash 
event relate to pedal misapplication. Pedal misapplication crashes 
occur when a driver presses one pedal while intending to press another 
pedal. In an emergency braking situation, pedal misapplication would 
result in the driver pressing the accelerator pedal hard. Identifying 
and decreasing pedal misapplication events is important, as a recent 
study observed pedal misapplication rates involved a much higher 
percentage of events than previously estimated.\54\ While data points 
can be estimated to account for data gaps when recorded at 2 Hz, driver 
actions may not be captured by the EDR at the time they occur. This 
informational gap may result in underestimations of the accelerator 
application rate, resulting in a failure to identify pedal 
misapplication entirely, if, for example, the driver fully presses the 
accelerator pedal to 100 percent for a quarter of a second. An 
increased recording frequency of 10 Hz will help identify events 
involving pedal misapplication, potentially providing additional 
information on how to mitigate these events and improve vehicular 
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Smith, C.P., Sherony, R., Gabler, H.C., and Riexinger, 
L.E., ``Identifying Pedal Misapplication Behavior Using Event Data 
Recorders,'' SAE Int. J. Advances & Curr. Prac. in Mobility 
5(1):206-216, 2023, doi:10.4271/2022-01-0817.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in addition to the many benefits provided by this final 
rule's requirement to increase part 563's data recording frequency 
requirements to 10 Hz, manufacturers' voluntary integration of ADAS 
data elements recorded at a sample rate of 10 Hz could provide valuable 
insights on the performance of new technologies. For example, some 
vehicle manufacturers already voluntarily collect EDR data on the 
status and operation of ADAS technologies (e.g., activation of forward 
crash warning alerts, automatic emergency braking activations, and lane 
keeping assist technologies). In voluntarily collecting this 
information, manufacturers have generally adopted the sample rate used 
for pre-crash data elements voluntarily recorded by the EDR (2 Hz), but 
some current EDRs capture data at 10 Hz. Evidence has shown that an 
increased sample rate of 10 Hz will help provide the resolution needed 
to understand the real-world performance and effectiveness of these 
advanced crash avoidance systems and better estimate the actions of the 
vehicle prior to a crash, such as the traveling trajectory.\55\ This 
information will in turn allow researchers to better determine the 
timing of the sequence of pre-crash actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Matsumura, H., and Itoh, T., ``Study on Estimation of 
Traveling Trajectory Using the Recording Data in the Event Data 
Recorder,'' SAE Int. J. Adv. & Curr. Prac. in Mobility 5(2):580-594, 
2023, https://doi.org/10.4271/2022-01-0837.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Costs

    The Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation (PRE) the NPRM relied on to 
estimate costs considered only vehicles equipped with EDRs containing 
sufficient memory, microprocessor specifications, and reserve energy to 
record 20 seconds of data at 10 Hz.

[[Page 102826]]

NHTSA acknowledges comments criticizing the NPRM's cost estimates for 
not adequately accounting for any changes needed to meet the proposed 
amendments.
    For example, the NPRM estimated additional memory costs by 
multiplying the additional 1,330 bytes to record for 20 seconds at 10 
Hz by the cost of flash memory (0.072 cents/megabyte) reported in the 
EDR Technology Study. This calculation resulted in a cost estimate of 
$0.003 for additional memory per event. However, in response to 
comments received, the agency reviewed online estimates, which indicate 
that the unit cost for a 16 kB, 32 kB, and 64 kB EEPROM is $0.41, 
$0.46, and $0.56, respectively.\56\ This pricing results in an 
additional cost of $0.15 to increase memory from 16 kB to 64 kB.\57\ As 
such, this final rule is updating the estimated unit cost for memory 
upgrade (if all seven pre-crash data elements are recorded) to be $0.13 
per vehicle. The $0.13 per vehicle includes $0.06 per vehicle to 
upgrade the storage memory and $0.07 per vehicle to upgrade the RAM, 
both based on two events being recorded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See https://www.mouser.com/c/semiconductors/memory-ics/eeprom as of July 25, 2023.
    \57\ Note that RAM is generally more expensive than EEPROM, but 
NHTSA does not have a comparable price comparison because of a lack 
of data and online product information specifically for RAM designed 
for vehicle use. However, based on NHTSA's internal analysis, RAM is 
approximately 20.0 percent more expensive than EEPROM given the same 
memory capacity. As a result, updating RAM would cost $0.07 (= 0.06 
* 1.20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the PRE still applies to EDRs with sufficient memory, 
microprocessor specifications, and reserve energy to meet this final 
rule's requirements, NHTSA acknowledges it did not comprehensively 
consider costs associated with older EDR technologies and the 
corresponding level of upgrades potentially required in vehicles 
equipped with them, including costs for redesign and validation. Per 
comments received, NHTSA understands not all vehicles are equipped with 
EDRs containing sufficient memory/processor capability/reserve energy 
to require only software changes.\58\ Based on feedback from commenters 
and in acknowledgement of this issue, NHTSA has revisited the cost 
estimates presented in the NPRM to determine the costs associated with 
meeting the requirements of this final rule given the wide variety of 
EDRs currently available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ The cost of upgrading this class of EDRs now reflects the 
``upper bound'' of the cost analysis provided below and represents 
the need to go from a ``base EDR'' to an ``upgraded EDR.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike the PRE, this final rule includes estimated costs for EDRs 
currently compliant with part 563 that need upgrades to meet this final 
rule's new recording duration and frequency requirements. These updated 
cost estimates are presented via a ``lower bound'' and ``upper bound'' 
to capture the potential range for the total cost of the final rule. 
These bounds are in place to avoid speculating on how many vehicles and 
EDR platforms would only require software changes to meet the new data 
capture requirements versus those that would require hardware and 
software changes.
Description of Upper and Lower Bound Cost Estimates
    The cost estimates presented in the Final Regulatory Evaluation 
(FRE) now represent a ``lower bound'' reflecting the incremental costs 
of ``upgraded EDRs'' that already have the capacity to comply with this 
final rule.\59\ The ``upper bound'' represents all the potential 
components of an EDR that may require upgrades to transition from a 
``base EDR'' to an ``upgraded EDR'' to meet the requirements of this 
final rule. For this category of EDRs, the estimated costs encompass 
more than the incremental costs required to meet this final rule. As 
EDRs currently vary in hardware capabilities, the actual cost of the 
final rule should fall somewhere between the lower bound and upper 
bound of the cost estimates laid out below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ The agency recognizes that even with the approach taken in 
the PRE, manufacturers would still need to test and validate any 
redesigned EDR to ensure it would function as intended and not 
negatively affect the performance of the air bag systems in the 
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Every part 563 pre-crash data element will require the capturing of 
an additional 190 data points to meet the 20 second recording duration 
and 10 Hz frequency requirement of this final rule. Specifically, for 
the 3 required data elements in Table I, the total number of additional 
data points is 570. For all 7 pre-crash data elements in Table I and 
II, the total number of additional data points is 1,330. The NPRM 
explained that manufacturers could accommodate this needed increase in 
memory by using the existing memory already available for capturing and 
recording EDR data (typically in the ACM). The NPRM estimated 
associated costs for these additional memory needs (1.33 kB for all 7 
pre-crash elements) would be $0.003 per vehicle based on a conservative 
estimate of $0.002/kB. However, as previously acknowledged, these 
estimated costs did not account for EDRs requiring hardware upgrades 
based on insufficient reserve energy or microprocessors.
    While many newer generation EDRs record at rates between 5 Hz to 10 
Hz, most EDRs still record 5 seconds of pre-crash data. Although the 
agency has a large pool of EDR data, ascertaining the exact hardware 
specifications among various EDRs for the purposes of this rulemaking 
is not practical, as EDR modules come with a variety of chip designs 
capable of accomplishing similar functionality with similar costs, and 
this information is proprietary. The varied and proprietary nature of 
EDR designs thus makes defining a representative ``base EDR'' 
challenging. Further, EDR designs vary not only by manufacturer, but 
also often by vehicle model, and EDR capabilities are not standardized. 
Indeed, they must only meet the minimum requirements in part 563. For 
example, some EDRs record more than 5 seconds of pre-crash data, some 
record more than two events, and some voluntarily record more optional 
data elements than those specified in Table I or Table II of part 563. 
Further, some EDRs record the required and optional pre-crash data at 
different sample rates.
    Despite the lack of available data needed to perform a 
comprehensive assessment of EDR design specifications and corresponding 
functionalities, the agency used its best knowledge to adequately 
describe a representative base EDR representing the upper bound for the 
cost estimates based on the specifications in Table 3. We assumed that 
a base EDR does not have sufficient excess memory to record pre-crash 
data for 20 seconds at 10 Hz, requiring the microcontroller and reserve 
energy to be upgraded or increased to meet the requirements of this 
final rule. We also assumed that a base level EDR must be fully 
upgraded/modernized, meaning its associated costs are well in excess of 
the incremental costs associated with making an already updated EDR 
compliant with the final rule. This cost is more representative of a 
vehicle manufacturer updating its EDR capability with an eye towards 
recording additional data elements, such as data elements required by 
UN R160. If a manufacturer chooses to capture and record ADAS-related 
pre-crash data elements not listed in part 563, then hardware 
components may need to be upgraded well beyond what is required by this 
final rule. However, as mandated by the FAST Act, NHTSA is only 
changing the duration and sample rate of part 563 pre-crash data 
elements.
    For the lower bound of cost estimates, we assumed a vehicle is 
already

[[Page 102827]]

equipped with an EDR capable of capturing pre-crash data for 20 seconds 
at 10 Hz, as well as additional unrequired data (i.e., it has already 
been upgraded by the vehicle manufacturer from the base level 
previously discussed to the fully modernized level). In this scenario, 
the ``upgraded EDR'' would not require hardware changes but may still 
require development time for software changes, testing, and validation. 
As a result, the estimated cost for this scenario would only include 
software redesign and EDR validation. An upgraded EDR representing the 
lower bound is described by the specifications in Table 3.
    As shown in Table 3, the estimated cost to upgrade only the 
hardware of the base EDR to that of the upgraded EDR is $1.33 per EDR. 
This cost estimate includes an increase in the non-volatile memory 
capacity, a higher-performance MCU, and more reserve energy to capture 
and record the data and backup power to the system.

               Table 3--Base EDR and Upgraded EDR Hardware Specifications Used for Cost Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component                                              Base EDR....................  Upgraded EDR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Volatile Memory.............  EEPROM or Flash....  16 kB.......................  64 kB.
Microcontroller (32-bit)........  ROM................  512 kB......................  1 MB.
                                  Memory.............  48 kB.......................  96 kB.
                                  RAM................  48 kB.......................  96 kB.
                                  Clock Frequency....  80 MHz......................  120 MHz.
Reserve Energy..................  Capacitance........  3.3 [mu]F...................  10 [mu]F.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Estimated costs to upgrade hardware for increased data capture (per unit)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       $1.33.......................  $0.00.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following publication of the NPRM and review of comments received 
NHTSA carried out a Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE), available under 
the same docket number as this final rule, to estimate the total unit 
cost per EDR. The total unit cost consists of the following components: 
(1) increased memory capacity, (2) microcontroller upgrades, (3) energy 
reserve upgrade, (4) EDR redesign and validation, (5) assembling 
related material and labor costs, and (6) data imaging tool upgrade. 
The aggregated unit cost is the additional cost for an EDR to comply 
with the final rule. Based on these findings, the agency now estimates 
that the cost to upgrade EDRs to meet the new requirements under this 
final rule would range between $0.87 and $2.20 per vehicle equipped 
with an EDR.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ All costs are in 2022 values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA estimates that this final rule will affect approximately 
15.23 million light vehicles annually with a GVWR less than 8,501 lbs. 
This number is derived from Ward's Automotive Yearbook 2022 and the 
agency's NCAP data. Based on Ward's data, from 2012 to 2021, the 
average annual sales of light vehicles with a GVWR less than 14,001 lbs 
was approximately 16.21 million. Due to the incompatible GVWR 
categorization in Ward's data, NHTSA was not able to directly parse out 
the number of light vehicles, i.e., GVWR less than 8,501 lbs, so NCAP 
data was used. NCAP data includes the precise GVWR and expected sales 
volume, but only for models of vehicles that manufacturers reported to 
the agency. In other words, NCAP might not be adequate for assessing 
the absolute annual vehicle sale volume since the expected sold volume 
might not be the actual volume sold and the reported models might not 
be comprehensive. However, NCAP is a reasonable, available source to 
derive the relative proportion of vehicles by GVWR. Based on 2021 and 
2022 NCAP, an average of 6 percent of reported light vehicles had a 
GVWR greater than 8,500 lbs. Multiplying the annual sales from Ward's 
data by the percentage of affected vehicles results in 15.23 million (= 
16.21 million * 0.94). Based on approximately 15.23 million affected 
vehicles sold annually, the total estimated annual costs range from 
$13.26 million to $33.52 million.\61\ The FRE's estimated unit cost per 
EDR for each cost component, the total unit cost, and the total annual 
costs for the lower and upper bound estimates are shown in Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Costs for testing, evaluation, and other fixed costs are 
factored into the component unit costs by a 1.5 markup factor from 
its variable cost.

  Table 4--Cost Estimates for Increased Recording Duration of EDR Pre-
                               Crash Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Cost To Modernize EDR From Indicated Baseline
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Upgraded EDR     Base EDR (upper
          Cost components             (lower bound)          bound)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memory Capacity Increase..........              $0.00              $0.13
    EEPROM/Flash Increase.........               0.00               0.06
    Buffer (Volatile Memory)......               0.00               0.07
Microcontroller Upgrades..........               0.00               1.10
Energy Reserve Upgrade............               0.00               0.02
EDR Redesign and Validation.......               0.87               0.87
Labor for Assembling..............               0.00               0.08
Data Imaging Tool Upgrade.........               0.00               0.00
Aggregated Unit Cost..............               0.87               2.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 102828]]

 
Total Number of Affected Vehicles.               15,230,000
                                   -------------------------------------
        Total Cost of the Rule (in             $13.26             $33.52
         Millions)................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the lack of reliable available data discussed above, NHTSA 
has used the cost estimates provided by Auto Innovators in response to 
the NPRM to estimate the cost for redesign and validation in the 
FRE.\62\ Auto Innovators provided an estimated average development/
testing cost of $8.4 million per OEM, based on feedback from OEMs. This 
estimate would amount to a total of $142.8 million collectively for the 
17 OEMs that provided estimates to Auto Innovators and would only be 
considered part of the cost burden for the first year. Applying this 
cost to 16.4 million vehicles sold annually \63\ over 10 years, the 
estimated cost per vehicle for this component is $0.87. In the FRE for 
this final rule, the estimated $0.87 for redesign and validation has 
been applied equally in both the lower bound and upper bound scenarios. 
Estimated costs for memory, microprocessors, and capacitors were 
derived from an online search, with sources presented in the FRE for 
this rulemaking. The components were filtered using the following 
specifications: automotive grade or use, reel package, and surface-
mount. The sourced online sale unit prices were quoted for small 
quantities compared to the large quantities that OEMs may order for 
production. The unit prices were further discounted to 30 percent of 
the unit price.\64\ The costs for wiring and assembly have been 
adjusted for inflation from the estimated assembly costs presented in 
the 2006 EDR final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ NHTSA-2022-0021-0025.
    \63\ Annual production of vehicles typically fitted with part 
563 compliant EDRs averaged between 2015-2019 (pre-COVID). See 
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/explore-automotive-trends-data#SummaryData.
    \64\ Online quotes are for a sale quantity that is significantly 
less than the quantity that would be purchased by the manufacturers. 
To account for the efficiency of mass production and pricing power, 
NHTSA uniformly discounted these unit prices by 70 percent to 
represent the component price for manufacturers. This 70 percent 
discount may be conservative based on the agency's knowledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In acknowledgment of the updated estimated costs laid out in the 
FRE, NHTSA has added lead time to this final rule to allow OEMs 
additional time to comply with this final rule. This lead time should 
mitigate costs that may be required for OEMs to meet this final rule. 
The added lead time will also allow for the phasing out of older EDR 
systems prior to the implementation of the 20 second and 10 Hz 
requirements. Phasing out these EDRs will help negate required upgrades 
and any costs associated with the necessary components and costs needed 
to develop and test the package.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094, and DOT Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures

    We have considered the potential impact of this rule under 
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 14094, 
and DOT Order 2100.6A. This final rule is nonsignificant under E.O. 
12866 and E.O. 14094 and was not reviewed by the Office of Management 
and Budget. It is also not considered ``of special note to the 
Department'' under DOT Order 2100.6A, Rulemaking and Guidance 
Procedures.
    As discussed in this final rule and the NPRM, the additional pre-
crash data that would be collected by EDRs under this final rule would 
be valuable for the advancement of vehicle safety by enhancing and 
facilitating crash investigations, the evaluation of safety 
countermeasures, advanced restraint and safety countermeasure research 
and development, and certain safety defect investigations. Improvements 
in vehicle safety could occur indirectly from the collection of these 
data.
    We estimate that approximately 99.5 percent of model year 2021 
passenger cars and other vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg or less are 
already equipped with part 563-compliant EDRs. As discussed in the 
section on the cost impacts of this final rule, the agency believes 
that a portion of currently equipped EDRs would not require additional 
hardware to meet the requirements of this final rule and that the 
compliance costs would be low for software testing and validation. 
Additionally, this final rule's lead time should allow manufacturers to 
choose how best to equip compliant EDRs in applicable vehicles by the 
effective date of this final rule, while also mitigating costs. Updated 
cost estimates have been provided for EDRs that would require hardware 
and software updates.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed 
and final rules on small businesses, small organizations, and small 
Government jurisdictions. The Act requires agencies to prepare and make 
available an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) 
describing the impact of proposed and final rules on small entities. An 
RFA is not required if the head of the agency certifies that the 
proposed or final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. I hereby certify that this rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Additional details related to the basis of this finding 
can be found in the FRE for this rulemaking final rule.
    The factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) is set 
forth below. Although the agency is not required to issue an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis, this section discusses many of the 
issues that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis would address.
    This final rule creates minor amendments to 49 CFR part 563, Event 
Data Recorders (EDRs), to extend the recording period for pre-crash 
elements in voluntarily installed EDRs from 5 seconds of pre-crash data 
at a sample rate of 2 Hz to 20 seconds of pre-crash data at a sample 
rate of 10 Hz. This final rule applies to vehicle manufacturers that 
produce light vehicles with a GVWR not greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 
pounds) and voluntarily install EDRs in their vehicles. It also applies 
to final-stage manufacturers and alterers. We know of no Federal rules 
which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the final rule.
    The Small Business Administration's size standard regulation at 13 
CFR part 121, ``Small business size regulations,'' prescribes small 
business size standards by North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) codes.

[[Page 102829]]

NAICS code 336211, Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing, prescribes a small 
business size standard of 1,000 or fewer employees. NAICS code 336390, 
Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing, prescribes a small business 
size standard of 1,000 or fewer employees. Most motor vehicle 
manufacturers would not qualify as a small business. There are a number 
of vehicle manufacturers that are small businesses.
    This final rule will directly affect 20 single stage motor vehicle 
manufacturers.\65\ None of these are qualified as a small business. 
However, NHTSA analyzed current small manufacturers, multistage 
manufacturers, and alterers that currently have part 563 compliant EDRs 
and found that 13 motor vehicle manufacturers affected by this 
rulemaking would qualify as small businesses. While these 13 motor 
vehicle manufacturers qualify as small businesses, none of them would 
be significantly affected by this rulemaking for several reasons. 
First, vehicles that contain EDRs are already required to comply with 
part 563. These small businesses generally 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 for 
EDRs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ BMW, Fiat/Chrysler (Ferrari and Maserati), Ford, Geely 
(Volvo), General Motors, Honda (Acura), Hyundai, Kia, Lotus, Mazda, 
Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Nissan (Infiniti), Porsche, Subaru, Suzuki, 
Tata (Jaguar and Land Rover), Tesla, Toyota (Lexus), and Volkswagen/
Audi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule may require hardware changes and will require adjusting 
the recording time and sampling rate for up to seven pre-crash data 
elements. As previously stated, the agency believes some current or 
planned systems can accommodate these changes. Additionally, NHTSA 
believes the market for the vehicle products of the 13 small vehicle 
manufacturers is highly inelastic, meaning that purchasers of their 
products are enticed by the desire to have a highly customized vehicle. 
Generally, under this circumstance, if any prices increase, the price 
of competitor's models will also need to be raised by a similar amount, 
since all light vehicles must comply with the standards. Therefore, any 
reasonable price increase will not have any effect on sales of these 
vehicles. NHTSA also designed the final rule to provide two years of 
lead time before the implementation of this final rule. Limited line 
\66\ and small-volume manufacturers \67\ will only need to produce 
compliant EDRs on or after September 1, 2029. Manufacturers producing 
altered vehicles or vehicles in two or more stages will have one 
additional year, until September 1, 2030, for compliance. This 
additional time provides any affected entities flexibility and ample 
time to make the necessary assessments to acquire a basis for 
certifying their vehicles' compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Limited line manufacturer means a manufacturer that sells 
three or fewer carlines, as that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in 
the United States during a production year.
    \67\ Small-volume manufacturer as defined in Sec.  571.127, 
``Automatic emergency braking systems for light vehicles,'' is an 
original vehicle manufacturer that produces or assembles fewer than 
5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined this rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives 
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded 
that this rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: 
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a 
State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue 
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is 
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any 
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the 
same aspect of performance. The express preemption provision described 
above is subject to a savings clause under which compliance with a 
motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not 
exempt a person from liability at common law. 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). 
Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action 
against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted 
by the express preemption provision are generally preserved.
    NHTSA rules can also preempt State law if complying with the FMVSS 
would render the motor vehicle manufacturers liable under State tort 
law. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum 
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose 
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be 
preempted. If and when such a conflict does exist--for example, when 
the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard--the 
State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier 
v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered 
whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of 
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the 
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that 
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this 
end, the agency has examined the nature (i.e., the language and 
structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this rule and finds 
that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, would prescribe only a minimum 
safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend this rule to preempt 
state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor 
vehicle manufacturers. Establishment of a higher standard by means of 
State tort law will not conflict with the minimum standard adopted 
here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption 
of a State common law tort cause of action.
    This final rule proposes technical amendments to an already 
existing regulation.\68\ When 49 CFR part 563 was promulgated in 2006, 
NHTSA explained its view that any state laws or regulations that 
prohibit the types of EDRs addressed by part 563 would create a 
conflict and therefore be preempted. As a result, regarding this final 
rule, NHTSA does not believe there are current state laws or 
regulations for EDRs that conflict with part 563 or with the overall 
minor

[[Page 102830]]

change to capture time proposed by this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ The 2006 final rule promulgating 49 CFR part 563 discussed 
preemption at length. See 71 FR 50907, 51029 (Aug. 28, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the amendments required by this final rule are directed by 
the FAST Act, which directs NHTSA to conduct a study to determine the 
amount of time EDRs should capture and record data to provide 
sufficient information for crash investigators, and conduct a 
rulemaking based on this study to establish the appropriate recording 
period in part 563. NHTSA conducted an EDR Duration Study and submitted 
a Report to Congress summarizing the results of this study in September 
2018. This final rule fulfills the rulemaking mandated by the FAST Act. 
To the extent there are state laws with different capture times than 
that required by this final rule, Congress made the determination in 
the FAST Act that the capture time required by part 563 should be 
extended. NHTSA is issuing this final rule in accordance with that 
statutory mandate.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    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.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive 
effect of this rule is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. 
NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals 
submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative 
proceeding before they may file suit in court.

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et. seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. NHTSA will submit a report containing 
this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This 
rule does not meet the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) to be considered a 
major rule. The rule will be effective sixty days after the date of 
publication in the Federal Register.

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation)

    Executive Order 13609, ``Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation,'' promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet 
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, 
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent 
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
    The agency is currently participating in the negotiation and 
development of technical standards for Event Data Recorders in the 
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) World Forum for 
Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). As a signatory member, 
NHTSA is obligated to initiate rulemaking to incorporate safety 
requirements and options specified in Global Technical Regulations 
(GTRs) if the U.S. votes in the affirmative to establish the GTR. No 
GTR for EDRs has been developed at this time. NHTSA has analyzed this 
rule under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 
13609 and has determined this rulemaking would have no effect on 
international regulatory cooperation.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act. In accordance with 49 CFR 1.81, 42 U.S.C. 
4336, and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1C, NHTSA has determined that this rule 
is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning 
and administrative activities, such as promulgation of rules, that do 
not involve or lead directly to construction). This rulemaking, which 
amends regulations regarding Event Data Records (EDRs) to extend the 
EDR recording period of timed data metrics from 5 seconds of pre-crash 
data at a frequency of 2Hz to 20 seconds of pre-crash data at a 
frequency of 10 Hz, is not anticipated to result in any environmental 
impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in 
connection with this rulemaking.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency 
unless the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) control number. This final rule makes amendments that relate to 
an information collection that is subject to the PRA, but the 
amendments are not expected to increase the burden associated with the 
information collection. In compliance with the requirements of the PRA, 
NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register on August 26, 2021 (86 
FR 47719), seeking public comment and providing a 60-day comment 
period. NHTSA followed up with a second notice, published on March 17, 
2022 (87 FR 15302), announcing that the agency was submitting the 
information collection request to OMB for approval. OMB approved the 
collection without change on September 29, 2022 (OMB Control No. 2127-
0758).

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall 
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means 
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies 
and departments.'' 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 SAE International (SAE). 
The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 
when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards. The NTTAA requires agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards in lieu of government-unique standards except where 
inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical.
    There are several consensus standards related to EDRs, most notably 
those standards published by SAE (J1698--Event Data Recorder) and the 
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (Standard 
1616, IEEE Standard for Motor Vehicle Event Data Recorder). NHTSA 
carefully considered the consensus standards applicable to EDR data 
elements in establishing part 563. Consensus standards for recording 
time/intervals, data sample rates, data

[[Page 102831]]

retrieval, data reliability, data range, accuracy and precision, and 
EDR crash survivability were evaluated by NHTSA and adopted when 
appropriate. The FAST Act directed NHTSA to conduct a study to 
determine the amount of time EDRs should capture and record pre-crash 
data to provide sufficient information for crash investigators, and to 
conduct a rulemaking based on this study to establish the appropriate 
recording period in NHTSA's EDR regulation. NHTSA conducted the EDR 
Duration Study and submitted a Report to Congress summarizing the 
results of this study in September 2018. This rulemaking exceeds the 
pre-crash data recording durations of the SAE and IEEE standards (i.e., 
SAE and IEEE recommend recording 8 seconds of pre-crash data) based 
upon the new information obtained from the EDR Duration Study. The 
results of the study on EDR recording duration suggest that the 
recommended recording duration by these standards would not capture the 
initiation of crash avoidance maneuvers. NHTSA declines to adopt the 
voluntary consensus standards for the pre-crash recording because such 
a decision would be inconsistent with the best available information to 
the agency and conflict with the outcome of a study required by the 
FAST Act.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 
Public Law 104-4, 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 annually (adjusted 
for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the 
implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2020 
results in $158 million (113.625/71.868 = 1.581). Before promulgating a 
rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA 
generally requires the agency to 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 
the agency to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most 
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes 
with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not 
adopted.
    This final rule would not result in expenditures by State, local, 
or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in 
excess of $158 million (in 2020 dollars) annually. As a result, the 
requirements of section 202 of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks)

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks,'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
proposed or final rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically 
significant,'' as defined in E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe 
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If a rule meets both 
criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the rule on children and explain why the rule is preferable 
to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by the agency. This rulemaking is not subject to the 
Executive order because it is not economically significant as defined 
in E.O. 12866.

Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any 
rulemaking that: (1) is determined to be significant as defined under 
E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse effect on the 
supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated 
by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is not subject 
to E.O. 13211.

Privacy

    The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, sec. 208, 116 
Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct 
a Privacy Impact Assessment when they develop or procure new 
information technology involving the collection, maintenance, or 
dissemination of information in identifiable form or they make 
substantial changes to existing information technology that manages 
information in identifiable form. A PIA is an analysis of how 
information in identifiable form is collected, stored, protected, 
shared, and managed. The purpose of a PIA is to demonstrate that system 
owners and developers have incorporated privacy protections throughout 
the entire life cycle of a system.
    The Agency submitted a Privacy Threshold Analysis analyzing this 
rulemaking to the DOT, Office of the Secretary's Privacy Office (DOT 
Privacy Office). The DOT Privacy Office has determined that this 
rulemaking does not create privacy risk because no new or substantially 
changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information 
in an identifiable form because of this rule. NHTSA also notes that the 
Driver Privacy Act of 2015 assigns ownership of EDR data to the vehicle 
owner, provides limitations on data retrieval from EDR data, and 
generally prohibits access to EDR data with specific exceptions to this 
general rule.

Plain Language Requirement

    E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain 
language. Application of the principles of plain language includes 
consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    NHTSA has considered these questions and attempted to use plain 
language in promulgating this final rule. If readers have suggestions 
on how we can improve our use of plain language, please write us.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 563

    Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and record keeping 
requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 563 as 
follows:

[[Page 102832]]

PART 563--EVENT DATA RECORDERS

0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 563 to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30101, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, 
30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Add definitions for ``Limited-line manufacturer'' and ``Small-volume 
manufacturer'' in alphabetical order to Sec.  563.5(b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  563.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
* * * * *
    Limited-line manufacturer means a manufacturer that sells three or 
fewer carlines, as that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in the United 
States during a production year.
* * * * *
    Small-volume manufacturer means an original vehicle manufacturer 
that produces or assembles fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually for sale 
in the United States.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise Sec.  563.7 to read as follows:

Sec.  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 to 
Sec.  563.7(a), during the interval/time and at the sample rate 
specified in that table.

   Table I to Sec.   563.7(a)--Data Elements Required for All Vehicles
                          Equipped With an EDR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Recording interval/time    Data sample
          Data element            \1\ (relative to time    rate (samples
                                          zero)             per second)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta-V, longitudinal..........  0 to 250 ms or 0 to End             100
                                  of Event Time plus 30
                                  ms, whichever is
                                  shorter.
Maximum delta-V, longitudinal..  0-300 ms or 0 to End of             N/A
                                  Event Time plus 30 ms,
                                  whichever is shorter.
Time, maximum delta-V..........  0-300 ms or 0 to End of             N/A
                                  Event Time plus 30 ms,
                                  whichever is shorter.
Speed, vehicle indicated.......  -20.0 to 0 sec \4\.....          \4\ 10
Engine throttle, % full (or      -20.0 to 0 sec \4\.....          \4\ 10
 accelerator pedal, % full).
Service brake, on/off..........  -20.0 to 0 sec \4\.....          \4\ 10
Ignition cycle, crash..........  -1.0 sec...............             N/A
Ignition cycle, download.......  At time of download \3\             N/A
Safety belt status, driver.....  -1.0 sec...............             N/A
Frontal air bag warning lamp,    -1.0 sec...............             N/A
 on/off \2\.
Frontal air bag deployment,      Event..................             N/A
 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.
Frontal air bag deployment,      Event..................             N/A
 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.
Multi-event, number of event...  Event..................             N/A
Time from event 1 to 2.........  As needed..............             N/A
Complete file recorded (yes,     Following other data...             N/A
 no).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pre-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\ The frontal air bag warning lamp is the readiness indicator
  specified in S4.5.2 of FMVSS No. 208, and may also illuminate to
  indicate a malfunction in another part of the deployable restraint
  system.
\3\ The ignition cycle at the time of download is not required to be
  recorded at the time of the crash, but shall be reported during the
  download process.
\4\ For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2027, the required
  recording interval is -5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the
  required data sample rate is 2 samples per second. For vehicles
  manufactured before September 1, 2029 by small-volume manufacturers
  and limited-line manufacturers, the required recording interval is -
  5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the required data sample rate
  is 2 samples per second. For vehicles manufactured before September 1,
  2030 by manufacturers producing altered vehicles or vehicles in two or
  more stages, the required recording interval is -5.0 to 0 sec relative
  to time zero and the required data sample rate is 2 samples per
  second.

    (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 to Sec.  563.7(b) 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 to Sec.   563.7(b)--Data Elements Required for Vehicles Under Specified Minimum Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Recording interval/time
          Data element name                 Condition for        \1\ (relative to time    Data sample rate (per
                                             requirement                 zero)                   second)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lateral acceleration.................  If recorded \2\........  N/A....................  N/A
Longitudinal acceleration............  If recorded............  N/A....................  N/A
Normal acceleration..................  If recorded............  N/A....................  N/A
Delta-V, lateral.....................  If recorded............  0-250 ms or 0 to End of  100
                                                                 Event Time plus 30 ms,
                                                                 whichever is shorter.

[[Page 102833]]

 
Maximum delta-V, lateral.............  If recorded............  0-300 ms or 0 to End of  N/A
                                                                 Event Time plus 30 ms,
                                                                 whichever is shorter.
Time maximum delta-V, lateral........  If recorded............  0-300 ms or 0 to End of  N/A
                                                                 Event Time plus 30 ms,
                                                                 whichever is shorter.
Time for maximum delta-V, resultant..  If recorded............  0-300 ms or 0 to End of  N/A
                                                                 Event Time plus 30 ms,
                                                                 whichever is shorter.
Engine rpm...........................  If recorded............  -20.0 to 0 sec \5\.....  \5\ 10
Vehicle roll angle...................  If recorded............  -1.0 up to 5.0 sec \3\.  10
ABS activity (engaged, non-engaged)..  If recorded............  -20.0 to 0 sec \5\.....  \5\ 10
Stability control (on, off, or         If recorded............  -20.0 to 0 sec \5\.....  \5\ 10
 engaged).
Steering input.......................  If recorded............  -20.0 to 0 sec \5\.....  \5\ 10
Safety belt status, right front        If recorded............  -1.0 sec...............  N/A
 passenger (buckled, not buckled).
Frontal air bag suppression switch     If recorded............  -1.0 sec...............  N/A
 status, right front passenger (on,
 off, or auto).
Frontal air bag deployment, time to    If equipped with a       Event..................  N/A
 nth stage, driver \4\.                 driver's frontal air
                                        bag with a multi-stage
                                        inflator.
Frontal air bag deployment, time to    If equipped with a       Event..................  N/A
 nth stage, right front passenger \4\.  right front
                                        passenger's frontal
                                        air bag with a multi-
                                        stage inflator.
Frontal air bag deployment, nth stage  If recorded............  Event..................  N/A
 disposal, driver, Y/N (whether the
 nth stage deployment was for
 occupant restraint or propellant
 disposal purposes).
Frontal air bag deployment, nth stage  If recorded............  Event..................  N/A
 disposal, right front passenger, Y/N
 (whether the nth stage deployment
 was for occupant restraint or
 propellant disposal purposes).
Side air bag deployment, time to       If recorded............  Event..................  N/A
 deploy, driver.
Side air bag deployment, time to       If recorded............  Event..................  N/A
 deploy, right front passenger.
Side curtain/tube air bag deployment,  If recorded............  Event..................  N/A
 time to deploy, driver side.
Side curtain/tube air bag deployment,  If recorded............  Event..................  N/A
 time to deploy, right side.
Pretensioner deployment, time to       If recorded............  Event..................  N/A
 fire, driver.
Pretensioner deployment, time to       If recorded............  Event..................  N/A
 fire, right front passenger.
Seat track position switch, foremost,  If recorded............  -1.0 sec...............  N/A
 status, driver.
Seat track position switch, foremost,  If recorded............  -1.0 sec...............  N/A
 status, right front passenger.
Occupant size classification, driver.  If recorded............  -1.0 sec...............  N/A
Occupant size classification, right    If recorded............  -1.0 sec...............  N/A
 front passenger.
Occupant position classification,      If recorded............  -1.0 sec...............  N/A
 driver.
Occupant position classification,      If recorded............  -1.0 sec...............  N/A
 right front passenger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pre-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.

[[Page 102834]]

 
\5\ For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2027, the required recording interval is -5.0 to 0 sec
  relative to time zero and the required data sample rate is 2 samples per second. For vehicles manufactured
  before September 1, 2029 by small-volume manufacturers and limited-line manufacturers, the required recording
  interval is -5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the required data sample rate is 2 samples per second. For
  vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2030 by manufacturers producing altered vehicles or vehicles in two
  or more stages, the required recording interval is -5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the required data
  sample rate is 2 samples per second.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95 and 501.
Adam Raviv,
Chief Counsel.

[Final Rule, RIN 2127-AM12, 49 CFR part 563 Event Data Recorders]

[FR Doc. 2024-29862 Filed 12-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
```