[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 113 (Monday, June 14, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32932-32954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-13241]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 563
[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18029]
RIN 2127-AI72
Event Data Recorders
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposal addresses event data recorders (EDRs), i.e.,
devices that record safety information about motor vehicles involved in
crashes. Manufacturers have been voluntarily installing EDRs as
standard equipment in increasingly larger numbers of light vehicles in
recent years. They are now being installed in the vast majority of new
vehicles. The information collected by EDRs aids investigations of the
causes of crashes and injuries, and makes it possible to better define
and address safety problems. The information can be used to improve
motor vehicle safety systems and standards. As the use and capabilities
of EDRs increase, opportunities for additional safety benefits,
especially with regard to emergency medical treatment, may become
available.
We are not presently proposing to require the installation of EDRs
in any motor vehicles. We are proposing to (1) require that the EDRs
voluntarily installed in light vehicles record a minimum set of
specified data elements useful for crash investigations, analysis of
the performance of safety equipment, e.g., advanced restraint systems,
and automatic collision notification systems; (2) specify requirements
for data format; (3) increase the survivability of the EDRs and their
data by requiring that the EDRs function during and after the front,
side and rear vehicle crash tests
[[Page 32933]]
specified in several Federal motor vehicle safety standards; (4)
require vehicle manufacturers to make publicly available information
that would enable crash investigators to retrieve data from the EDR;
and (5) require vehicle manufacturers to include a brief standardized
statement in the owner's manual indicating that the vehicle is equipped
with an EDR and describing the purposes of EDRs.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than August 13, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by the docket number in
the heading at the beginning of this document] by any of the following
methods:
Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, 20590:
For technical and policy issues: Dr. William Fan, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, telephone (202) 366-4922, facsimile (202)
366-4329.
For legal issues: J. Edward Glancy, Office of the Chief Counsel,
telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Event Data Recorders
B. Chronology of Events Relating to NHTSA's Consideration of
Event Data Recorders
C. Petitions for Rulemaking
1. Petitions from Mr. Price T. Bingham and Ms. Marie E. Birnbaum
2. Petition from Dr. Ricardo Martinez
D. October 2002 Request for Comments
1. Safety Benefits
2. Technical Issues
3. Privacy Issues
4. NHTSA's Role in the Future of Event Data Recorders
5. Other Comments
E. Event Data Recorders and the Implementation of Automatic
Collision Notification Systems
II. Proposal and Response to Petition
A. Data Elements to be Recorded
B. Data Standardization
C. Data Retrieval
D. Functioning of Event Data Recorders and Crash Survivability
E. Privacy
F. Leadtime
G. Response to Petition from Dr. Martinez
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
IV. Submission of Comments
I. Background
A. Event Data Recorders
Event data recorder devices have been used in other transportation
sectors, such as railroads. Over the past several years, there has been
considerable interest in the safety community regarding possible safety
benefits from the use of event data recorders (EDRs) in motor vehicles.
EDRs collect vehicle crash information.\1\ Some systems collect
only vehicle acceleration/deceleration data, while others collect these
data plus a host of complementary data, such as driver inputs (e.g.,
braking and steering) and vehicle systems status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Since the term ``EDR'' can be used to cover many different
types of devices, we believe it is important to explain the term for
purposes of this document. When we use the term ``EDR'' in this
document, we are referring to a device that is installed in a motor
vehicle to record technical vehicle and occupant-based information
for a brief period of time (i.e., seconds, not minutes) before,
during and after a crash. For instance, EDRs may record (1) pre-
crash vehicle dynamics and system status, (2) driver inputs, (3)
vehicle crash signature, (4) restraint usage/deployment status, and
(5) certain post-crash data such as the activation of an automatic
collision notification (ACN) system. We are not using the term to
include any type of device that either makes an audio or video
record, or logs data such as hours of service for truck operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The way in which this is accomplished may be described in the
following somewhat simplified manner. The EDR monitors several of the
vehicle's systems, such as speed, brakes, and several safety systems.
It continuously records and erases information on these systems so that
a record of the most recent 8-second period is always available. If an
``event'' occurs, i.e., if a crash meeting a pre-determined threshold
of severity occurs, then the EDR moves the last 8 seconds of pre-crash
information into its long-term memory. In addition, it records and puts
into its long-term memory up to 6 seconds of data relating to what
happens after the start of the crash, such as the timing and manner of
deployment of the air bags.
The information collected by EDRs aids investigations of the causes
of crashes and injury mechanisms, and makes it possible to better
identify and address safety problems. Thus, the information can be used
to improve motor vehicle safety.
EDRs have been installed as standard equipment in an increasingly
large number of light motor vehicles in recent years, particularly in
vehicles with air bags. We estimate that 65 to 90 percent of model year
2004 passenger cars and other light vehicles have some recording
capability, and that more than half record such things as crash pulse
data. We do not have more precise estimates because not all vehicle
manufacturers have provided us detailed information on this topic.
Vehicle manufacturers have made EDR capability an additional
function of the vehicle's air bag control systems. The air bag control
systems were necessarily processing a great deal of vehicle
information, and EDR capability could be added to the vehicle by
designing the air bag control system to capture, in the event of a
crash, relevant data in memory.
EDRs have become increasingly more advanced with respect to the
amount and type of data recorded.
B. Chronology of Events Relating to NHTSA's Consideration of Event Data
Recorders
NHTSA's Special Crash Investigations (SCI) program first utilized
EDR information in support of an agency crash investigation in 1991.
This was done in cooperation with the vehicle's manufacturer, General
Motors (GM). Throughout the 1990s, NHTSA's SCI team utilized EDRs as
one of their investigative tools. From 1991 through 1997, SCI worked
with manufacturers to read approximately 40 EDRs in support of its
program.
In 1997, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued
Safety Recommendation H-97-18 to NHTSA, recommending that we ``pursue
crash information gathering using EDRs.'' NTSB recommended that the
agency ``develop and implement, in conjunction with the domestic and
international automobile manufacturers, a plan to gather better
information on crash pulses and other crash parameters in actual
crashes, utilizing current or augmented crash sensing and recording
devices.'' Also, in that year, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), in a study
conducted for NHTSA about advanced air bag technology, recommended that
we ``study the feasibility of installing and obtaining
[[Page 32934]]
crash data for safety analyses from crash recorders on vehicles.''
In early 1998, NHTSA's Office of Research and Development (R&D)
formed a Working Group comprised of industry, academia, and other
government organizations. The group's objective was to facilitate the
collection and utilization of collision avoidance and crashworthiness
data from on-board EDRs.
In 1999, NTSB issued a second set of recommendations to NHTSA
related to EDRs, H-99-53 and 54, recommending that we require EDRs to
be installed on school buses and motor coaches.
In 2000, NHTSA sponsored a second working group related to EDRs,
the NHTSA Truck & Bus EDR Working Group. This Working Group collected
facts related to use of EDRs in trucks, school buses, and motor
coaches.
In August 2001, the NHTSA-sponsored EDR Working Group published a
final report on the results of its deliberations.\2\ Highlights of the
Working Group findings were the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Event Data Recorders, Summary of Findings by the NHTSA EDR
Working Group, August 2001, Final Report (Docket No. NHTSA-99-5218-
9). Persons interested in additional information about EDRs may wish
to examine section 12 of the final report, which sets forth a
bibliography and references.
1. EDRs have the potential to greatly improve highway safety,
for example, by improving occupant protection systems and improving
the accuracy of crash reconstructions.
2. EDR technology has potential safety applications for all
classes of motor vehicles.
3. A wide range of crash related and other data elements have
been identified which might usefully be captured by future EDR
systems.
4. NHTSA has incorporated EDR data collection in its motor
vehicle research databases.
5. Open access to EDR data (minus personal identifiers) will
benefit researchers, crash investigators, and manufacturers in
improving safety on the highways.
6. Studies of EDRs in Europe and the U.S. have shown that driver
and employee awareness of an on-board EDR reduces the number and
severity of drivers' crashes.
7. Given the differing nature of cars, vans, SUVs, and other
lightweight vehicles, compared to heavy trucks, school buses, and
motor coaches, different EDR systems may be required to meet the
needs of each vehicle class.
8. The degree of benefit from EDRs is directly related to the
number of vehicles operating with an EDR and the current
infrastructure's ability to use and assimilate these data.
9. Automatic crash notification (ACN) systems integrate the on-
board crash sensing and EDR technology with other electronic
systems, such as global positioning systems and cellular telephones,
to provide early notification of the occurrence, nature, and
location of a serious collision.
10. Most systems utilize proprietary technology and require the
manufacturer to download and analyze the data.
In 2001, NHTSA developed a website about highway-based EDRs located
at the following address: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/edr-site/index.html.
The final report of the NHTSA Truck and Bus EDR Working Group was
published in May 2002.\3\ The record of this Working Group is in Docket
No. NHTSA-2000-7699.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Event Data Recorders, Summary of Findings by the NHTSA EDR
Working Group, May 2002, Final Report, Volume II, Supplemental
Findings for Trucks, Motorcoaches, and School Buses. (Docket No.
NHTSA-2000-7699-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Petitions for Rulemaking
1. Petitions From Mr. Price T. Bingham and Ms. Marie E. Birnbaum
In the late 1990s, the agency denied two petitions for rulemaking
asking us to require the installation of EDRs in new motor vehicles.
(63 FR 60270; November 9, 1998 and 64 FR 29616; June 2, 1999.)
The first petitioner, Mr. Price T. Bingham, a private individual,
asked the agency to initiate rulemaking to require air bag sensors to
be designed so that data would be recorded during a crash, allowing it
to be read later by crash investigators. The petitioner cited a concern
about air bag deployments that might be ``spontaneous,'' but did not
limit the petition to that issue.
The second petitioner, Ms. Marie E. Birnbaum, also a private
individual, asked us to initiate rulemaking to require passenger cars
and light trucks to be equipped with ``black boxes'' (i.e., EDRs)
analogous to those found on commercial aircraft.
In responding to these petitions, NHTSA stated that it believed
EDRs could provide information that is very valuable in understanding
crashes, and that can be used in a variety of ways to improve motor
vehicle safety. The agency denied the petitions because the motor
vehicle industry was already voluntarily moving in the direction
recommended by the petitioners, and because the agency believed ``this
area presents some issues that are, at least for the present time, best
addressed in a non-regulatory context.''
2. Petition From Dr. Ricardo Martinez
In October 2001, the agency received a petition from Dr. Ricardo
Martinez, President of Safety Intelligence Systems Corporation and
former Administrator of NHTSA, asking us to ``mandate the collection
and storage of onboard vehicle crash event data, in a standardized data
and content format and in a way that is retrievable from the vehicle
after the crash.''
According to the petitioner, understanding what happens in a crash
is essential to preventing injuries and deaths. Dr. Martinez stated
that this information is the cornerstone of safety decision-making,
whether it is designing the vehicle, making policy, identifying a
potential problem or evaluating the effectiveness of safety systems.
The petitioner argued, however, that despite the high-tech nature
of motor vehicles today, current methods of crash investigation rely on
``analyzing the `archaeology of the crash,' subjective witness
statements, and expert opinion to determine the `facts.' '' Dr.
Martinez also noted that the movement from mechanical to electrical
systems and sensors means that physical evidence of the crash is
diminishing. For example, anti-lock brakes reduce skid marks, making it
more difficult to make determinations about wheel and vehicle behavior.
According to Dr. Martinez, field investigations of motor vehicle
crashes are costly, time consuming, laborious, and often inaccurate.
The petitioner stated that there is a significant difference (sometimes
more than 100%) between derived crash severity calculations and those
directly measured by a vehicle. The petitioner also stated that because
of costs and limitations of current crash investigations and
reconstructions, the total number of cases available for analysis are
limited and skewed toward the more serious crashes. Dr. Martinez stated
that, as a result, current data bases are recognized to have major
deficiencies because of the small number of crashes they contain and
the bias of the information.
The petitioner noted that today's vehicles generate, analyze and
utilize tremendous amounts of vehicle-based information for operations
such as engine and speed control, braking, and deployment of safety
systems. For example, increasingly sophisticated air bag systems make
``decisions'' based on vehicle speed, crash direction and severity,
occupant size and position, and restraint use. However, not all
vehicles capture and store this information. Further, not all of the
data elements and formats for this information are standardized.
Dr. Martinez argued that the increasing sophistication and
decreasing costs of information technology has created the opportunity
to now mandate the capture, storage, and retrieval of
[[Page 32935]]
onboard crash data. The petitioner stated that rulemaking should
standardize the collection of existing information as a minimal data
set in a standardized format for storage and retrieval. He stated that
the NHTSA-sponsored Working Group on EDRs, the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) have all begun work on minimum data sets for EDRs. The
petitioner also called for requirements to ensure the crash
survivability of the collected data.
Dr. Martinez noted that the agency had previously denied similar
petitions based the belief that the automotive industry was already
voluntarily moving in the direction recommended by the petitioners and
that some issues associated with this area are best addressed in a non-
regulatory context. The petitioner argued, however, that an agency
rulemaking along the lines discussed above is necessary because overall
the industry's response has been ``sluggish and disjointed.'' Dr.
Martinez stated that much of the information is proprietary to each
individual manufacturer and there is no standardization of the data
elements or format of information. The petitioner also stated that
while some manufacturers have provided EDRs in their vehicles, others
have said they will only install EDRs if the government mandates the
devices.
The petitioner also argued that a NHTSA rulemaking would greatly
accelerate the deployment of ACN. He noted that the FCC is currently
implementing rules to require automatic location information for
emergency calls made from wireless phones. According to Dr. Martinez,
the nexus between vehicles and communications provides the basis for
ACN. The petitioner stated that only a small amount of vehicle
information, such as crash severity, restraint use, direction of force
and location (if available) is of use to emergency providers. However,
the advent of advanced ACN is dependent upon the standardized
collection of crash information in the vehicle.
Finally, the petitioner stated that he believes privacy issues can
be overcome by ensuring that the vehicle owner is the one who owns the
data collected by the EDR and can provide permission for its use and
transmission. The petitioner stated that EDR data does not have
personal identifier information and is only stored in the event of a
crash. He also noted that current crash information in the form of
police reports and insurance claims have much more personal identifying
information than the information in EDRs.
The petition from Dr. Martinez was submitted shortly after the
NHTSA EDR Working Group had published its final report on the results
of its deliberations. As discussed in more detail in the next section
of this document, in October 2002, after the second working group had
completed its work, we decided to request public comments on what
future role the agency should take related to the continued development
and installation of EDRs in motor vehicles. We decided to respond to
Dr. Martinez's petition after considering those comments.
D. October 2002 Request for Comments
On October 11, 2002, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (67 FR
63493) (Docket No. NHTSA-02-13546), a request for comments concerning
EDRs. The agency discussed its involvement with EDRs over the past few
years, and explained that particularly since the two NHTSA-sponsored
working groups had completed their work, it was requesting comments on
what future role the agency should take related to the continued
development and installation of EDRs in motor vehicles. The agency
discussed a range of issues, including safety benefits, technical
issues, privacy issues, and the role of the agency, and asked a number
of questions.
We received comments representing light and heavy vehicle
manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, vehicle users, the medical
community, advocacy organizations, safety research organizations, crash
investigators, insurance companies, academia, and government agencies.
We also received comments from a number of private individuals.
A summary of the comments follows. To keep the summary short, we do
not discuss all comments on particular topics, but instead discuss
representative comments. In addition, since this NPRM concerns light
vehicles and not heavy vehicles, the summary focuses primarily on
comments relevant to EDRs in light vehicles.
1. Safety Benefits
A wide variety of commenters expressed the belief that EDRs will
improve vehicle safety by providing necessary and accurate data for
crash analysis, information for potential injury prediction, and data
for vehicle/roadway design improvement.
NTSB stated that the issue of automatic recording devices for all
modes of transportation has been on its ``Most Wanted'' list since
1997. That organization noted that on-board recording devices have
proven themselves to be extremely valuable in other modes of
transportation, particularly aviation. NTSB stated that effective
implementation of on-board recording in highway vehicles can have a
similar, positive impact on highway safety.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance), which
represents most large manufacturers of light vehicles, stated that its
members recognize that EDRs have the potential to contribute to the
quality of field performance data, roadway designs and emergency
response systems. That organization also stated that it is possible
that EDRs could improve existing safety databases both with respect to
the accuracy of existing data elements and through the addition of new
data elements that are not currently available.
The Automotive Occupant Restraints Council, which represents
manufacturers of safety belts and air bags, stated that it believes
that the installation of EDRs and capture of data related to vehicle
crashes has the potential to greatly improve highway safety by
providing crash data that can be utilized in designing improved
occupant restraint systems.
The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety stated that research
literature and practical experience make it abundantly clear that data
obtained from EDRs after crashes and near-crash events can be used to
substantially improve traffic safety.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) stated that EDRs
have enormous potential to aid researchers in understanding the
circumstances and precursors of crashes as well as in providing more
reliable information on crash severities. That organization stated that
a better understanding of these issues ultimately could lead to
improved vehicle safety.
The American Automobile Association (AAA) stated that in the effort
to reduce the number and severity of crashes, not enough has been in
the collection and analysis of scientific data to fully understand the
dynamics and trends in crash causation. According to that association,
data from EDRs provide an objective measurement of what actually
occurred during those last seconds before a crash. AAA stated that
obtaining information about the ``crash pulse'' should yield important
benefits in vehicle design by identifying the types of changes that
manufacturers could pursue to build more crash-friendly vehicles.
A number of commenters from the medical community, including the
National Association of EMS
[[Page 32936]]
Physicians, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the William
Lehman Injury Research Center, and the University of Alabama Center for
Injury Sciences, supported the emergency medical system (EMS)
connection for improved medical treatment, including support for real
time data transmission and easy download capability at a crash scene by
EMS personnel.
With regard to possible crash prevention aspects of EDRs, some
commenters stated that they do not believe or know of any research
supporting the premise that, by itself, a driver's knowledge of the
presence of an EDR would have any appreciable direct effect on crash
prevention. The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute stated that it
had conducted two large instrumented truck-driving studies and based on
the results their researchers believe that the commercial drivers would
not change their driving behavior because of the existence of an on-
board EDR.
2. Technical Issues
One technical issue addressed by commenters was the data elements
that should be collected. Mitsubishi believes that the list should be
narrow and focused on safety-related items only. Consumers Union and
IIHS submitted lists of data elements. Some of the more common data
elements discussed by those two include crash pulse information (such
as x- and y-acceleration), safety belt usage, air bag deployment
status, pre-crash data (such as brake application, engine rpm, throttle
position, etc.), and the vehicle identification number. The American
Trucking Association supported the 28 data elements listed by NHTSA-
sponsored truck and bus working group, but the Automotive Occupant
Restraints Council doubts whether these data elements are technically
and economically feasible. Public Citizen believes that NHTSA should
determine a minimum set of data for light duty vehicles and another set
for heavy trucks.
Another technical issue addressed by a number of commenters was how
much data should be recorded. Commenters generally agreed that EDRs
should collect data for a very brief period of time. IIHS, Consumers
Union, Veridian Engineering, and one individual indicated data
collection periods up to 10 seconds for pre-crash and post-crash data
and several tenths of a second for crash data. Bendix recommended 30 to
60 seconds of pre- and post-crash data.
On the issue of standardization of EDR data, many commenters stated
that standardization is desired or helpful. The Truck Manufacturers
Association believes that connectors, download protocols, and data
output must be standardized. While Mitsubishi believes that
standardization of EDR data is desirable, it is not sure about the
safety benefits. The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute believes
that the data elements of EDRs should be standardized to encourage the
ease of use. Public Citizen believes that standardization is the
primary determinant for the program's effectiveness and would enhance
efforts to monitor emerging technologies. Both the SAE and IEEE
commented that they are working on drafting standards for use with
EDRs.
Several commenters addressed survivability of EDRs and EDR data.
Mitsubishi believes that the EDR survivability has already been
demonstrated by the existing EDRs and vehicle manufacturers should be
able to determine the EDR's survivability design conditions. Both
Bendix and Automotive Occupant Restraints Council believe that EDRs
should be installed in a secured location to survive almost all
crashes. The Automotive Occupant Restraints Council also believes that
a requirement for back-up power is essential, but commented that fire
resistant design is not. New Jersey DOT believes that EDR designs
should be able to function after a crash, tamper resistant, and
waterproof. The Truck Manufacturers Association and Veridian believe
that EDRs should be designed to withstand the ``standard automotive
environment'' including crash and environmental effects and power
failure. Veridian also believes that the EDR needs to be tamperproof.
An individual said that EDRs should be mechanically tamperproof and
should be designed to withstand the IIHS offset frontal crash tests.
3. Privacy Issues
There were many comments related to NHTSA's questions regarding
privacy. Mitsubishi believes that government should set regulations for
EDR data usage to protect privacy. The Center for Injury Sciences,
University of Alabama at Birmingham believes that privacy issues can be
addressed by ensuring the vehicle owner also has ownership of the data
and must consent to its use.
Some commenters specifically commented that they believe that the
owner of the vehicle owns the EDR data. Veridian Engineering stated
that it obtains the owner's permission before collecting data for an
investigation.
Chalmers University of Technology (in Sweden) believes that safety
improvement is more important than privacy concerns. It also argued
that while EDRs can provide more complete and accurate information than
thorough crash reconstruction aided by current simulation software and
vehicle dynamics theory, it cannot provide new information that cannot
already be estimated by such reconstruction. IIHS urged that NHTSA
ensure that EDR data it obtains and makes available to researchers do
not contain any personal information that would indicate the identities
of the occupants involved. Public Citizen believes that the use of EDR
data for statistical analysis does not involve privacy concerns, and
that issues between safety and privacy can be addressed by partitioning
technology (to separate any personally identifying data from other
data) and other means best evaluated as part of the rulemaking process.
The American Trucking Associations believe that certain EDR data
elements should be accessible to rescue/medical personnel.
Consumers Union presented several potential concerns it had
regarding access to EDR data, including: Insurers requiring EDRs as a
condition of coverage and the use of EDR data in crash-related
litigation. It said that most consumers do not know about the existence
of EDRs or how the data recorded by EDRs may be used in ways that
directly affect them. That organization stated that consumers have
``the right to know that EDRs are installed in the vehicles, that they
are capable of collecting data recorded in a crash, and which parties
may have access to this data.''
Regarding encryption, Veridian Engineering supports encrypted EDR
data and the need for security codes to gain access to the data.
Consumers Union urged that NHTSA incorporate standards concerning
encryption and data access into the agency EDR requirements.
Mitsubishi and American Trucking Associations believe that the
storage and collection of EDR data raises privacy issues, and that
NHTSA should address the issue accordingly. They also said that NHTSA
should work with other Federal agencies to develop the privacy
protection status afforded other industries. New Jersey DOT believes
that identification of specific vehicle crash location and time should
be limited for emergency purposes to crash victims.
4. NHTSA's Role in the Future of Event Data Recorders
There were many comments on this topic. The Alliance believes that
NHTSA has an important role on how to incorporate EDR data into
existing
[[Page 32937]]
databases. Mitsubishi believed that NHTSA should study the legal and
privacy issues associated with the use of EDR technology.
The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM)
stated that it would be premature for NHTSA to undertake regulation of
EDRs at this time. That organization stated that rather than regulating
this emerging application now, manufacturers should be permitted to
develop systems on their own and work with voluntary standards
organizations as a means of achieving consensus.
The Center for Injury Sciences of the University of Alabama at
Birmingham and Public Citizen commented that NHTSA should mandate the
installation of EDRs with a minimum set of standardized data elements.
The Truck Manufacturers Association and Veridian Engineering
believe that NHTSA should perform research and encourage development of
EDR standards. Along similar lines, the American Trucking Associations
and Automotive Occupant Restraints Council believe that SAE and/or IEEE
should issue common EDR standards and that NHTSA should remain
technically engaged and act like a catalyst.
IIHS believes that NHTSA should encourage manufacturers to develop
and establish standard practices to download and interpret information
from EDRs. They also believe that, in the short term, NHTSA should work
with manufacturers to increase the availability of data that currently
are recorded and include this information in NASS-CDS and FARS
databases.
New Jersey DOT believes that NHTSA should continue to meet its
mandate for vehicle safety and leave the privacy issues to the public
through its representatives in the legislative branch.
5. Other Comments
One university submitted a survey of 437 mostly college-age people.
Of those surveyed, 95 percent believe that EDRs have the potential to
improve vehicle safety. Over 50 percent expected great safety
improvement and 90 percent said EDRs have potential safety application
to all classes of vehicles. About 60 percent of these students
responded that they favored safety and privacy equally, but when asked
to choose between safety and privacy, over 80 percent preferred safety.
Regarding NHTSA's role, about 95 percent believed that NHTSA should
continue participating in the development of EDRs.
E. Event Data Recorders and Implementation of Automatic Crash
Notification Systems
As noted above, ACN systems integrate on-board crash sensing and
EDR technology with other electronic systems, such as global
positioning systems and cellular telephones, to provide early
notification of the occurrence, nature, and location of serious
crashes. Early notification can save many lives. Each year, there are
about 42,000 fatalities from motor vehicle traffic crashes in the
United States. In these and other emergencies, more lives can be saved
if emergency personnel can determine in advance the likely nature and
severity of the injuries, take with them the right resources for
treating those particular injuries, and more quickly locate and reach
the scene of the crash.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Trauma System Agenda For The Future, Coordinated through the
American Trauma Society Supported by the U.S. Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
October 2002. See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ems/emstraumasystem03/.
Enhanced communications among all members of the trauma care
team during the pre-hospital phase will speed deployment of
resources, produce more appropriate triaging, and result in better
patient outcomes. Greater use of wireless technology should enable
team members to speak to other hospitals and providers in the field
and to give direction and assistance wherever the care is being
provided. Discovery (Automatic Collision Notification-(ACN), Access
(wireless), and Coordination (telemedicine) all will be enhanced
through improved technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDRs will help make this possible since they can provide the data
necessary to determine crash severity, which can be used to predict
injury severity. Software has been developed for evaluating crash data
and predicting injury severity. Standardizing EDR data content and
format would ensure that these predictions are based on the same
foundation data across the entire spectrum of new makes and models of
light vehicles.
Implementation of ACN systems requires not only incorporating
improved EDRs in vehicles, but also use of advanced information and
communications technology. Implementation of wireless enhanced 911
(E911) and ACN systems can result in:
Faster incident detection and notification;
Faster emergency response times; and
Real-time wireless communications links among emergency
response organizations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Reducing Highway Deaths and Disabilities with Automatic
Wireless Transmission of Serious Injury Probability Ratings from
Crash Recorders to Emergency Medical Services Providers, Champion,
Augenstein, Digges, Hunt, Larkin, Malliaris, Sacco, and Siegel. See
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/edr-site/uploads/Reducing_Hwy_Deaths_and_Disabilities_w-_Auto_Wireless_Trans-.pdf.
Emergency medical care experience has shown that for many
serious injuries, time is critical. As described by RD Stewart:
Trauma is a time-dependent disease. ``The Golden Hour'' of trauma
care is a concept that emphasizes this time dependency. That is in
polytrauma (typically serious crash victims suffer multiple
injuries) patients, the first hour of care is crucial, and the
patient must come under restorative care during that first hour.* *
* Pre-hospital immediate care seeks to apply supportive measures,
and it must do so quickly, within what has been called the ``Golden
Ten Minutes.''
The goal in trauma care is to get seriously injured patients to
a trauma center for diagnosis, critical care and surgical treatment
within the ``Golden Hour''. To get the seriously injured patient
into the operating room of a trauma center with an experienced team
of appropriately specialized trauma surgeons within the ``Golden
Hour'' requires a highly efficient and effective trauma care system.
The time/life race of the ``Golden Hour'' to deliver patients to
definitive care consists of the following elements:
(1) Time between crash occurrence and EMS Notification,
(2) Travel time to the crash scene by EMS,
(3) On-scene EMS rescue time,
(4) Transport time to a hospital or trauma center,
(5) Emergency Department resuscitation time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nation's existing 911 system is administered through thousands
of Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). Prior to the advent of
wireless telephones, the PSAPs were able to automatically locate nearly
all 911 callers. Now, more than half of 911 calls in metropolitan areas
cannot be located because they originate from mobile wireless
telephones. Lack of location information is a particular problem with
911 calls made from cell phones to report crashes, since the caller is
often not able to determine and report precise location information.
Under Federal Communication Commission rules adopted in 1996,
wireless carriers must provide E911 service by 2005.\6\ This service
will provide location information for all wireless 911 calls, provided
that the local PSAP is equipped to receive and use the information. DOT
has been
[[Page 32938]]
actively involved in providing stakeholder leadership, technical
assistance, and technological innovation to accelerate full and
effective implementation of E911.\7\ This includes not only regulating
and coordinating the service provided by wireless carriers, but
ensuring that local PSAPs are able to receive and effectively use the
information.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See http://www.fcc.gov/911/enhanced/.
The wireless E911 program is divided into two parts--Phase I and
Phase II. Phase I requires carriers, upon appropriate request by a
local Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), to report the telephone
number of a wireless 911 caller and the location of the antenna that
received the call. Phase II requires wireless carriers to provide
far more precise location information, within 50 to 100 meters in
most cases.
The deployment of E911 requires the development of new
technologies and upgrades to local 911 PSAPs, as well as
coordination among public safety agencies, wireless carriers,
technology vendors, equipment manufacturers, and local wireline
carriers. The FCC established a four-year rollout schedule for Phase
II, beginning October 1, 2001 and to be completed by December 31,
2005.
\7\ See http://www.itspublicsafety.net/wireless.htm.
\8\ In August 2002, the ITS Public Safety Advisory Group Medical
Subcommittee issued a document titled ``Recommendations for ITS
Technology in Emergency Medical Services.'' It may be viewed at
http://www.itspublicsafety.net/docs/recommendations_itsems.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the meantime, efforts to provide ACN services have already
begun. Current ACN systems, such as GM's OnStar system, provide
automatic notification that a motor vehicle has been involved in a
crash, information about the nature of the crash, and the location of
the crash.\9\ While current ACN systems provide the information to a
private call center, which then relays this information to 911
dispatchers, future systems may be integrated with the 911 system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For additional information about ACN systems, see
``Enhancing Post-Crash Vehicle Safety Through an Automatic Collision
Notification System,'' Joseph Kanianthra, Arthur Carter and Gerard
Preziotti, paper presented at the 17th International Technical
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 2001, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv17/proceed/00085.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that in August 2003, General Motors (GM) announced the
introduction of an advanced system on the new Chevrolet Malibu and
Malibu Maxx. This system is part of the OnStar package. While that
company's earlier ACN system provided automatic notification to the
OnStar call center in the event of air bag deployment, its advanced ACN
system provides automatic notification if the vehicle is involved in a
moderate to severe frontal, rear or side-impact crash, regardless of
air bag deployment. Also, the new system provides crash severity
information.
For these reasons, we believe that ACN systems offer great
potential for reducing deaths and injuries from motor vehicle crashes,
and that improving EDRs would make a contribution toward the continued
development and implementation of these systems.
II. Proposal and Response to Petition
As discussed earlier, in the late-1990s, NHTSA denied two petitions
for rulemaking requesting the agency to require the installation of
EDRs in new motor vehicles, because the motor vehicle industry was
already voluntarily moving in the direction recommended by the
petitioners, and because the agency believed ``this area presents some
issues that are, at least for the present time, best addressed in a
non-regulatory context.''
Today, after the completion of the NHTSA-sponsored EDR Working
Group's tasks and after considering the public comments and the
petition from Dr. Martinez, we have tentatively concluded that motor
vehicle safety can be advanced by a limited regulatory approach. In
order to promote safety, we are particularly interested in ensuring
that when an EDR is provided in a vehicle, the EDR will record the data
necessary for effective crash investigations, analysis of the
performance of advanced restraint systems, and ACN systems, and that
these data can be easily accessed and used by crash investigators and
researchers.
Given what the motor vehicle industry is already doing voluntarily
in this area, we are not at this time proposing to require the
installation of EDRs in all motor vehicles. As indicated earlier, we
estimate that 65 to 90 percent of model year 2004 passenger cars and
other light vehicles have some recording capability, and that more than
half record such things as crash pulse data.
We are proposing a regulation that would specify requirements for
light vehicles that are equipped with EDRs, i.e., vehicles that record
information about crashes. The proposed regulation would (1) require
the EDRs in these vehicles to record a minimum set of specified data
elements; (2) specify requirements for data format; (3) require that
the EDRs function during and after the front, side and rear vehicle
crash tests specified in several Federal motor vehicle safety
standards; (4) require vehicle manufacturers to make publicly available
information that would enable crash investigators to retrieve data from
the EDR; and (5) require vehicle manufacturers to include a brief
standardized statement in the owner's manual indicating that the
vehicle is equipped with an EDR and discussing the purposes of EDRs. A
discussion of each of these items is provided in the sections that
follow.
The proposed regulation would apply to the same vehicles that are
required by statute and by Standard No. 208 to be equipped with frontal
air bags, i.e., passenger cars and trucks, buses and multipurpose
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8500 pounds) or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 pounds) or less, except for
walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles designed to be used exclusively by
the U.S. Postal Service. This covers the vast majority of light
vehicles. Moreover, these are the vehicles that will generally have
advanced restraint systems, since they are the ones subject to the
advanced air bag requirements now being phased in under Standard No.
208.
We are not addressing in this document what future role the agency
may take related to the continued development and installation of EDRs
in heavy vehicles. We will consider that topic separately. Any action
we might take in that area would be done in consultation with the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Similar to our approach in the area of vehicle identification
numbers, we are proposing a general regulation rather than a Federal
motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, while a failure to meet EDR
requirements would be subject to an enforcement action, it would not
trigger the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, currently codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.
A. Data Elements To Be Recorded
As indicated above, we are proposing to require light vehicles that
are equipped with EDRs to meet a number of requirements, including one
for recording specified data elements.
Before discussing the proposed set of specified data elements, we
will briefly address the issue of the crash recording capability that
would trigger application of the regulation's requirements. We are
proposing to apply the regulation to vehicles that record any one or
more of the following elements just prior to or during a crash, such
that the information can be retrieved after the crash: The vehicle's
longitudinal acceleration, the vehicle's change in velocity (delta-V),
the vehicle's indicated travel speed, the vehicle's engine RPM, the
vehicle's engine throttle position, service brake status, ignition
cycle, safety belt status, status of the vehicle's frontal air bag
warning lamp, the driver's frontal air bag deployment level, the right
front passenger's frontal air bag deployment level, the elapsed time to
deployment of the first stage of the driver's frontal air bag, and the
elapsed time to deployment of the first stage of the right front
passenger's frontal air bag. Thus, if a vehicle has a device that
records any of the basic items of information typically recorded by
EDRs, the proposed regulation would apply to that vehicle.
In analyzing what minimum set of specified data elements to
propose, we focused on the elements that would be most useful for
effective crash investigations, analysis of the
[[Page 32939]]
performance of safety equipment, e.g., advanced restraint systems, and
ACN systems. We believe these are the areas where information provided
by EDRs can lead to the greatest safety benefits.
EDRs can improve crash investigations by measuring and recording
actual crash parameters. They can also measure and record the operation
of vehicle devices whose operation cannot readily be determined using
traditional post-crash investigative procedures. For example, EDRs
could determine whether the ABS system functioned during the crash.
EDRs can also directly measure crash severity. Currently, NHTSA
estimates crash severity using crash reconstruction tools. One product
of these tools is an estimate of the vehicle's delta-V. With an EDR,
delta-V could be directly measured. Another assessment made by the
crash investigators is the principal direction of force (PDOF). This is
currently estimated based on physical damage. With x-axis and y-axis
accelerometers, this could be measured or post-processed for planar
(non-rollover) crashes, providing PDOF as a function of time.
EDRs can be particularly helpful in analyzing the performance of
advanced restraint systems. They can record important information that
is not measurable by post-crash investigations such as time of
deployment of pre-tensioners and the various stages of multi-level air
bags, the position of a seat during the crash (a seat is often moved by
EMS personnel during their extrication efforts), and whether seat belts
were latched.
Improved data from crash investigations will enable the agency and
others to better understand the causes of crashes and injury
mechanisms, and make it possible to better define and address safety
problems. This information can be used to develop improved safety
countermeasures and test procedures, and enhance motor vehicle safety.
EDRs can also make ACN systems more effective. An important
challenge of EMS is to find, treat, and transport to hospitals
occupants seriously injured in motor vehicle crashes in time to save
lives and prevent disabilities. ACN systems, such as the GM On-Star
system, can automatically and almost instantly provide information
about serious crashes and their location to EMS personnel, based on air
bag deployment or other factors. GM has announced that it will begin
equipping vehicles with advanced ACN systems that provide measurements
of crash forces for improved EMS decision-making. Data from EDRs can be
used as inputs for advanced ACN systems.
As discussed earlier, vehicle manufacturers have made EDR
capability an additional function of vehicles' air bag control systems.
The air bag control systems necessarily process a great deal of vehicle
information. EDR capability can be added to a vehicle by designing the
air bag control system to capture, in the event of a crash, the
relevant data in memory. The costs of EDR capability have thus been
minimized, because it involves the capture into memory of data that is
already being processed by the vehicle, and not the much higher costs
of sensing much of that data in the first place.
In developing our proposed regulation for EDRs, we have followed a
similar approach. That is, we have focused on the recording of the most
important crash-related data that care already being processed by
vehicles, and not using this rulemaking to require such things as
additional accelerometers. (The addition of an accelerometer to a
vehicle could add costs on the order of $20 per vehicle.)
For a variety of reasons, including the fact that the light
vehicles covered by this proposal are subject to Standard No. 208's
requirements for air bags, some of the most important crash-related
data we have identified are already being processed (or will soon be
processed) by all of these vehicles. Under our proposal, these data
elements would be required to be recorded for all vehicles subject to
the regulation.
Other important crash-related data are currently processed by some,
but not all vehicles. This reflects the fact that some advanced safety
systems are provided on some but not all vehicles. Under our proposal,
these data elements would be required to be recorded only if the
vehicle is equipped with the relevant advanced safety system or sensing
capability.
The following table identifies the data elements that would be
required to be recorded under our proposal. We note that the vast
majority of the elements in the table are being considered by SAE and/
or IEEE in their ongoing efforts to develop standards for EDRs.
Table I.--Data Elements That Must Be Recorded
[R=Required; IE=If Equipped]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition for
Data element R/IE Recording interval / time requirement (IE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longitudinal acceleration........... R -0.1 to 0.5 sec................... N.A.
Maximum delta-V..................... R Computed after event.............. N.A.
Speed, vehicle indicated............ R 8.0 to 0 sec...................... N.A.
Engine RPM.......................... R -8.0 to 0 sec..................... N.A.
Engine throttle, % full............. R -8.0 to 0 sec..................... N.A.
Service brake, on/off............... R -8.0 to 0 sec..................... N.A.
Ignition cycle, crash............... R -1.0 sec.......................... N.A.
Ignition cycle, download............ R At time of download............... N.A.
Safety belt status, driver.......... R -1.0 sec.......................... N.A.
Frontal air bag warning lamp, on/off R -1.0 sec.......................... N.A.
Frontal air bag deployment level, R Event............................. N.A.
driver.
Frontal air bag deployment level, R Event............................. N.A.
right front passenger.
Frontal air bag deployment, time to R Event............................. N.A.
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, time to R Event............................. N.A.
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 events R Event............................. N.A.
(1,2,3).
Time from event 1 to 2.............. R As needed......................... N.A.
Time from event 1 to 3.............. R As needed......................... N.A.
[[Page 32940]]
Complete file recorded (yes, no).... R Following other data.............. N.A.
Lateral acceleration................ IE -0.1 to 0.5 sec................... If vehicle is equipped
to measure
acceleration in the
vehicle's lateral (y)
direction.
Normal acceleration................. IE -0.1 to 0.5 sec................... If vehicle is equipped
to measure
acceleration in the
vehicle's normal (z)
direction.
Vehicle roll angle.................. IE -1.0 to 6.0 sec................... If vehicle is equipped
to measure or compute
vehicle roll angle.
ABS activity (engaged, non-engaged). IE -8.0 to 0 sec..................... If vehicle is equipped
with ABS.
Stability control status, on, off, IE -8.0 to 0 sec..................... If vehicle is equipped
engaged. with stability
control, ESP, or
other yaw control
system.
Steering input (steering wheel IE -8.0 to 0 sec..................... If vehicle equipped to
angle). measure steering
wheel steer angle.
Safety belt status, right front IE -1.0 sec.......................... If vehicle equipped to
passenger (buckled, not buckled). measure safety belt
buckle latch status
for the right front
passenger.
Frontal air bag suppression switch IE -1.0 sec.......................... If vehicle equipped
status, right front passenger (on, with a manual switch
off, or auto). to suppress the
frontal air bag for
the right front
passenger.
Frontal air bag deployment, time to IE Event............................. If vehicle equipped
Nth stage, driver *. with a driver's
frontal air bag with
a second stage
inflator.
Frontal air bag deployment, time to IE Event............................. If vehicle equipped
Nth stage, right front passenger*. with a right front
passenger's frontal
air bag with a second
stage inflator.
Frontal air bag deployment, Nth IE Event............................. If vehicle equipped
stage disposal, Driver, Y/N with a driver's
(whether the Nth stage deployment frontal air bag with
was for occupant restraint or a second stage that
propellant disposal purposes)*. can be ignited for
the sole purpose of
disposing of the
propellant.
Frontal air bag deployment, Nth .............. Event............................. If vehicle equipped
stage disposal, right front with a right front
passenger, Y/N (whether the Nth passenger's frontal
stage deployment was for occupant air bag with a second
restraint or propellant disposal stage that can be
purposes)*. ignited for the sole
purpose of disposing
of the propellant.
Side air bag deployment, time to .............. Event............................. If the vehicle is
deploy, driver. equipped with a side
air bag for the
driver.
Side air bag deployment, time to .............. Event............................. If the vehicle is
deploy, right front passenger. equipped with a side
air bag for the right
front passenger.
Side curtain/tube air bag .............. Event............................. If the vehicle is
deployment, time to deploy, driver equipped with a side
side. curtain or tube air
bag for the driver.
Side curtain/tube air bag .............. Event............................. If the vehicle is
deployment, time to deploy, right equipped with a side
side. curtain or tube air
bag for the right
front passenger.
Pretensioner deployment, time to .............. Event............................. If the vehicle is
fire, driver. equipped with a
pretensioner for the
driver safety belt
system.
Pretensioner deployment, time to .............. Event............................. If the vehicle is
fire, right front passenger. equipped with a
pretensioner for the
right front passenger
safety belt system.
Seat position, driver (whether or .............. -1.0.............................. If the vehicle is
not the seat is forward of a equipped to measure
certain position along the seat the position of the
track). driver's seat.
Seat position, passenger (whether or .............. -1.0.............................. If the vehicle is
not the right front passenger seat equipped to measure
is forward of a certain position the position of the
along the seat track). right front
passenger's seat.
Occupant size classification, driver .............. -1.0.............................. If the vehicle is
equipped to determine
the size
classification of the
driver.
Occupant size classification, right .............. -1.0.............................. If the vehicle is
front passenger. equipped to determine
the size
classification of the
right front
passenger.
Occupant position classification, .............. -1.0.............................. If the vehicle is
driver. equipped to
dynamically determine
position of the
driver.
Occupant position classification, .............. -1.0.............................. If the vehicle is
right front passenger. equipped to
dynamically determine
position of the right
front occupant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* List this element n-1 times, once for each stage of a multi-stage air bag system.
As indicated above, in developing this list, we focused on the
elements that would be most useful for effective crash investigations,
analysis of the performance of safety equipment, e.g., advanced
restraint systems, and ACN systems. Some of the data elements will be
useful for all three of these purposes; others, for only one or two.
The following table shows NHTSA's assessment of the application for
each element.
Table II.--Data Elements and Application
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced
Data element name Crash restraints ACN
investigation operation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longitudinal acceleration.............................. X X X
Maximum delta-V........................................ X X X
Speed, vehicle indicated............................... X ................. .................
[[Page 32941]]
Engine RPM............................................. X ................. .................
Engine throttle, % full................................ X ................. .................
Service brake, on/off.................................. X ................. .................
Ignition cycle, crash.................................. X ................. .................
Ignition cycle, download............................... X ................. .................
Safety belt status, driver............................. X X X
Frontal air bag warning lamp, on/off................... X X .................
Frontal air bag deployment level, driver............... X X .................
Frontal air bag deployment level, right front passenger X X .................
Frontal air bag deployment, time to first stage, driver X X .................
Frontal air bag deployment, time to first stage, right X X .................
front passenger.......................................
Frontal air bag deployment, time to second stage, X X .................
driver................................................
Frontal air bag deployment, time to second stage, right X X .................
front passenger.......................................
Frontal air bag deployment, second stage disposal, X X .................
driver, Y/N...........................................
Frontal air bag deployment, second stage disposal, X X .................
right front passenger, Y/N............................
Multi-event, number of events.......................... X X .................
Time from event 1 to 2................................. X .................
Time from event 1 to 3................................. X ................. .................
Complete file recorded................................. X X X
Lateral acceleration................................... X X X
Normal acceleration.................................... X ................. .................
Vehicle roll angle..................................... X ................. X
ABS activity........................................... X ................. .................
Stability control, on, off, engaged.................... X ................. .................
Steering input......................................... X ................. .................
Safety belt status, right front passenger.............. X X X
Frontal air bag suppression switch status, right front X X .................
passenger.............................................
Side air bag deployment, time to deploy, driver........ X X .................
Side air bag deployment, time to deploy, right front X X .................
passenger.............................................
Side curtain/tube air bag deployment, time to deploy, X X .................
driver side...........................................
Side curtain/tube air bag deployment, time to deploy, X X .................
right side............................................
Pretensioner deployment, time to fire, driver.......... X X .................
Pretensioner deployment, time to fire, right front X X .................
passenger.............................................
Seat position, driver.................................. X X .................
Seat position, right front passenger................... X X .................
Occupant size classification, driver................... X X .................
Occupant size classification, right front passenger.... X X .................
Occupant position classification, driver............... X X .................
Occupant position classification, right front passenger X X .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several of the elements are associated with crash severity. These
include longitudinal acceleration, lateral acceleration, normal
acceleration, delta-V, and vehicle roll angle. The longitudinal,
lateral, and normal accelerations are vehicle crash signatures in the
x, y, and z directions. Delta-V represents the overall crash severity.
These are important elements used in determining vehicle crash
severity. Vehicle roll angle is important to determining crash severity
in non-planar (rollover) crashes and useful for advanced ACN systems.
The service brake on/off and steering input elements are important
to understanding the human response to avoiding a pending crash.
Several elements cover pre-crash vehicle dynamics and system status:
Vehicle speed, engine RPM, engine throttle (% full), ABS activity, and
stability control (on, off, or engaged). These elements are helpful in
determining crash causation.
The elements concerning ignition cycle provide data on how many
times the ignition has been switched on since its first use. The
difference in the two measurements provides the number cycles between
the time when the data were captured and when they were downloaded. GM,
in its EDRs, currently records these data. They aid investigators in
determining the interval between the recorded event and the time when
it occurred. Small differences between these data indicate that the
event in the EDR was generated recently, while large differences
indicate that they are from an earlier event that may not be associated
with a current crash.
Many of the data elements relate to the usage and operation of
restraint systems. These elements are important in analyzing advanced
restraint operations. For example, without an EDR, it may not be
possible after a crash to determine whether a multi-stage air bag
deployed at a low or high level.
As discussed above, we are proposing to require some of the data
elements to be recorded only if the vehicle is equipped with the
relevant safety system or sensing capability. We note that as
manufacturers equip greater numbers of their vehicles with advanced
safety systems, a number of these data elements would be required to be
recorded on an increasing number of vehicles, or even all vehicles. Of
particular note, as manufacturers upgrade the side impact performance
of their vehicles it is expected that all light vehicles will measure
lateral acceleration.
We request comments on the data elements listed in Table I,
including whether the list sufficiently covers technology that is
likely to be on vehicles in the next five to 10 years. NHTSA encourages
manufacturers to develop, to the extent possible, additional data
elements for inclusion in the EDR as these new technologies emerge.
[[Page 32942]]
B. Data Standardization
As discussed earlier, one of our goals in this rulemaking is to
ensure that data are recorded and can be accessed in a manner that
enables crash investigators and researchers to use them easily. One
aspect of this is the format of the recorded data. To increase the
value of these data in assessing motor vehicle safety, the proposed
regulation would require that the data be recorded in a standardized
format.
We believe that data standardization would enable crash
investigators and researchers to more easily identify, interpret, and
compare data retrieved from vehicles involved in a crash. Currently,
the data format of an EDR is established by individual manufacturers
and is based on that manufacturer's specific technical specifications.
In the absence of any standardization, there is presently a wide
variation among vehicle manufacturers as to the format of data recorded
by an EDR. Comparisons between data recorded by different manufacturers
are less precise when differences exist between the parameters recorded
and the precision and accuracy specified. Such comparisons become even
less useful if manufacturers do not rely on a common definition of a
given data element.
To address this issue, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
established a committee to establish a common format for the display
and presentation of the data recorded by an EDR. The SAE Vehicle Event
Data Interface Committee (J1698-1), which held its first meeting in
late February 2003, has been considering common data definitions for
specific data elements, as well as other aspects of EDR
standardization.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) is
also addressing the standardization of EDR data formats. The IEEE Motor
Vehicle Event Data Recorder (MVEDR) working group (P1616) is drafting a
data dictionary and standards document for EDRs. P1616 is considering
specifying the data format with a set of attributes for each defined
data element. IEEE stated that it expected to complete a standard to
standardize data output and retrieval protocols by March 2004.
In light of the current lack of adopted industry standards, we are
proposing a standardized format that would ensure the usability of EDR
data, while still providing manufacturers flexibility in design. The
proposed regulation would define each data element and specify the
corresponding recording interval/time, unit of measurement, sample
rate, data range, data accuracy, data precision, and where appropriate,
filter class.
The proposed data format would require EDRs to capture crash data
of sufficient detail and time duration to ensure the usefulness of the
data in crash reconstruction without threatening its integrity. NHTSA
crash testing has shown that the typical offset frontal crash may last
as long as 250 milliseconds. We are also aware that underride and
override crashes may last even longer. Furthermore, rollover crashes
can last several seconds, depending on the number of rolls.
The proposed time periods (set forth in Table I above) would
establish a recording duration of 8 seconds prior to beginning of the
event to capture relevant pre-crash and event data. Acceleration data
would be required to be captured during the event. Finally, only
rollover data would be required to be recorded for several seconds
after the event. To the extent possible, the specified recording
duration is limited to reduce the likelihood of data being corrupted by
failure in the vehicle's electric system resulting from the crash
The proposed format would not mandate storage or output parameters.
C. Data Retrieval
A second aspect of accessibility is the necessity for crash
investigators and researchers to have the capability of downloading
crash data from the EDR. To ensure the availability of these data, we
are proposing to require vehicle manufacturers to submit to the NHTSA
docket specifications for accessing and retrieving the recorded EDR
data that would be required by this regulation. We are also seeking
comment on alternative approaches.
At the present time, investigators and researchers can access crash
data stored by EDRs for only a limited number of vehicles. Prior to
2000, only vehicle manufacturers could access the EDR data for their
vehicles. In 2000, Vetronix released its Crash Data Retrieval (CDR)
tool for sale to the public. The CDR tool is a software and hardware
device that allows someone with a computer to communicate directly with
certain EDRs and download the stored data. It is estimated that about
40 million vehicles on the road have EDRs that can be read using the
CDR tool, including many late model GM vehicles and some new Ford
vehicles.
However, Vetronix is licensed by only a limited number of vehicle
manufacturers to build these devices. Vetronix must presently use
proprietary vehicle manufacturer information to develop and configure
the hardware and software needed to allow the CDR tool to retrieve data
from a vehicle's EDR. If a vehicle manufacturer declines to license or
otherwise provide any proprietary information needed to build a device,
tool companies will not be able to produce them.
Both the SAE Vehicle Event Data Interface Committee (J1698-1) and
the IEEE Motor Vehicle Event Data Recorder working group (P1616)
discussed above have considered the downloading of EDR data by means of
the On Board Diagnostic (OBD) connector developed in conjunction with
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA has established
requirements for onboard diagnostic technologies, which manage and
monitor a vehicle's engine, transmission, and emissions. The EPA
regulations include a new standardized communications protocol for the
next generation of onboard diagnostic technology that allows a single
common interface between the OBD connector and diagnostic tools used to
read and interpret vehicle data and convert them into engineering
units.
The EPA communications protocol utilizes a Controller Area Network
(CAN) to provide a standardized interface between the OBD connector and
the tools used by service technicians and vehicle emission inspections
stations. CAN employs a serial bus for networking computer modules as
well as sensors. The standardized interface allows technicians to use a
single communications protocol to download data to pinpoint problems
and potential problems related to a vehicle's emissions.
Full implementation of the CAN protocol is required by 2008.
Because it is a universal system, the use of the OBD connector and the
CAN serial bus could assure uniform access to EDR data and alleviate
concerns that the data would only be accessible through the use of
multiple interfaces and different kinds of software, if at all.
While standardizing the means of downloading EDR data, possibly
using the OBD connector, offers potential benefits, we are at this time
proposing only to require vehicle manufacturers to submit to the agency
docket specifications necessary for building a device for accessing and
retrieving recorded EDR data. This approach will help ensure that EDR
data can be accessed in a manner readily usable by crash investigators
and researchers. It will also allow motor vehicle manufacturers the
flexibility to standardize protocols for data extraction.
We note that the context of NHTSA's proposal is quite different
from the
[[Page 32943]]
context of EPA's requirements for collecting, storing, and downloading
emissions-related data. The EPA approach is very structured. It needed
to be appropriate for facilitating the routine monitoring and servicing
of mandated emission control systems on motor vehicles, thus helping to
ensure that those systems perform properly over the useful life of
those vehicles. Establishing that approach has required many years of
effort and the development of numerous industry standards.
On the other hand, we are proposing a standard for voluntarily
installed EDRs, and need to ensure that it is appropriate for the much
more limited purpose of crash investigations. We are interested in a
simple, flexible approach, while maintaining the ability to extract
data efficiently from a motor vehicle's voluntarily installed EDR. To
obtain the desired outcome, NHTSA believes that it need not and should
not become involved in managing the interface between the auto industry
and the companies that may manufacture EDR download tools. But it is
evident that some interface is needed, and to that extent we are
proposing that certain information be provided.
We are proposing to require that each manufacturer of vehicles
equipped with EDRs provide information of sufficient detail to permit
companies that manufacture diagnostic tools to develop and build
devices for accessing and retrieving the data stored in the EDRs. The
vehicle manufacturer would be required to specify which makes and
models (by model year) of its vehicles utilize the corresponding EDR
system and to specify the interface locations. The leadtime we are
providing for implementing this proposed regulation (discussed below)
would enable vehicle manufacturers to design their EDRs so that the
data may be accessed by use of a standardized interface and
communications protocol. In the event that SAE, IEEE, or other
voluntary standard organization establishes a standard for a protocol
to be used in downloading EDR data, manufacturers would be able to
reference the industry protocol in their submissions.
Manufacturers would be required to submit this information in a
timely manner to ensure that the specifications were received by
NHTSA's docket not less than 90 days before the start of production of
makes and models utilizing EDR systems. This would give tool companies
time to develop a tool before an EDR-equipped vehicle is used on public
roads.
We are also seeking comment on alternative approaches to providing
access to EDR crash data, such as permitting the vehicle manufacturer
to demonstrate that a reasonably priced tool is publicly available for
a particular make/model or to offer to licence at a reasonable price
any proprietary information needed to build such tools. We note that
EPA permits manufacturers to request a reasonable price for provided
OBD-related information. See EPA final rule at 68 FR 38427, June 27,
2003. Comments are requested on the similarities and differences
between OBD and EDR related information, the uses of that information,
and relevant statutory authorities, and on whether this type of
approach would be appropriate for EDR information. We note that one
difference is that OBD tools are used as part of commercial activity,
i.e., routine servicing and repair of motor vehicles, while EDR tools
as used in crash investigations. The market for EDR tools would likely
be much smaller. If we were to adopt an approach along these lines,
what factors should be used for determining a ``reasonable price?''
Commenters supporting any of these or other alternative approaches
are encouraged to suggest specific regulatory text and to explain how
the recommended approach would ensure that crash investigators and
researchers have the capability of downloading data from EDRs.
Depending on the comments, we may adopt an alternative approach in the
final rule.
D. Functioning of Event Data Recorders and Crash Survivability
If an EDR is to provide useful information, it must function
properly during a crash, and the data must survive the crash. We are
proposing several requirements related to the functioning of the EDR
and survivability.
Performance of EDRs in crash tests. First, we are proposing to
require EDRs to meet the requirements for applicable data elements and
format in the crash tests specified in Standards No. 208, 214, and 301.
These tests are (some have been issued as final rules, but not yet
taken effect) a frontal barrier crash test conducted at speeds up to 35
mph, a frontal offset test conducted at 25 mph, a rear-impact crash
test conducted at 50 mph, and a side impact test conducted at 33.5 mph.
Data would be required to be retrievable by the method specified by the
vehicle manufacturer (discussed above) after the crash test.
This requirement would provide both a check on EDR performance and
also ensure a basic level of survivability. Manufacturers are familiar
with these crash tests since they are specified in the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards.
As to the issue of survivability, the EDRs of light vehicles are
currently part of the air bag module. These modules are located in the
occupant compartment of vehicles, providing protection against crush in
all but the most severe crashes. Moreover, because EDRs are part of the
air bag module, their electronics are designed to operate in a shock
environment. However, current EDRs lack protection from fire and
immersion in water and motor vehicle fluids.
While requiring EDRs to function properly during and after the
crash tests specified in Standards No. 208, 214, and 301 would ensure a
basic level of survivability, it would not ensure that EDR data survive
extremely severe crashes or ones involving fire or fluid immersion.
While EDR data would be useful to crash investigators and researchers
analyzing such crashes, we do not have sufficient information to
propose survivability requirements that would address such crashes.
Research is needed to develop such requirements, and information on the
costs of countermeasures to meet these additional requirements would
need to be developed. Countermeasures that would ensure the
survivability of EDR data in fires may be costly. For all of these
reasons, we are not including such requirements in this proposal.
Trigger threshold. We are also proposing requirements concerning
the level of crashes for which EDRs must capture \10\ data. These
requirements would ensure that EDRs capture information about crashes
of interest to crash investigators and researchers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Capturing is the process of saving recorded data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EDR operates in two modes. One is the steady state monitoring
of pre-crash data. EDRs operate continuously in this mode whenever the
vehicle is operating. This process allows momentary recording \11\ of
the pre-crash data. EDRs operate in the second mode when the vehicle is
involved in a crash. In this mode, two decisions are made. The first is
the determination of the occurrence of a crash and is accomplished by
use of a trigger threshold. The second is the decision to capture the
recorded data and accomplished using a comparative process. Based on
the outcome of this process, the recorded data associated with a crash
are captured or deleted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Recording is the process of storing data into volatile
memory for later use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In current light-duty vehicle applications, the trigger threshold
is
[[Page 32944]]
associated with the air bag crash severity analyzer. The circumstances
that cause the threshold to be met are called an ``event.'' The
beginning of the event that causes current EDRs to start capturing data
in its permanent memory is sometimes defined as the vehicle's exceeding
a specified deceleration threshold, typically around 2 g's. After the
event is over, and the air bags are deployed, the data are stored in
the EDR, if appropriate.
For determination of the beginning of an event, we are proposing to
require the EDR to start recording data when the vehicle's change in
velocity during any 20 millisecond (ms) time interval equals or exceeds
0.8 km/h. That is equivalent to slightly more than 1 g of steady-state
deceleration.
The vehicle's change in velocity is determined in one of two ways,
depending on the data collected by the EDR. In the case of a vehicle
that does not record and capture lateral acceleration, the delta-V is
based on the longitudinal acceleration only. In the more complex case
of a vehicle whose EDR records and captures both longitudinal and
lateral acceleration, the delta-V is calculated based on both sets of
data, or, simply stated, change in velocity of the vehicle in the
horizontal plane.
Timing of the unique, non-recurrent actions like the deployment of
an air bag in an event is very important. The trigger threshold is used
to define time zero. Time zero is used to determine many of the
parameters required for collection by the EDR, such as the time when
the front air bag deploys. Time zero is defined as the beginning of the
first 20 ms time interval in which the trigger threshold is met during
an event. Time zero is used to determine many of the parameters
required for collection by the EDR, such as the time of front air bag
deployment.
Recording multi-event crashes. A crash may encompass several
events. For example, a vehicle may sideswipe a guardrail and then hit a
car, or a vehicle may hit one vehicle, then another, and finally a
tree. In fact, analysis of crash data from NHTSA's NASS-CDS data system
shows that while 54 percent of the crashes involve a single event, 28
percent involve 2 events, and 18 percent involve 3 or more events.\12\
Thus, if an EDR captures only a single event as the depiction of a
multi-event crash, in nearly one-half of the cases, it could be
difficult to determine the event of the crash with which the EDR record
was associated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Gabler and Roston, ``Estimating Crash Severity: Can Event
Data Recorders Replace Crash Reconstruction,'' ESV Paper 490, 2003,
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv18/CD/Files/18ESV-000490.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current EDRs vary with respect to the number of events they
capture. For example, current Ford systems capture single events. GM
systems can capture two events, one non-deployment event and one
deployment event. These two events can be linked ones under certain
circumstances. If they are linked, the amount of time between events is
recorded. Current Toyota EDRs can capture up to three events. These can
also be linked to a chain of events making up a single crash sequence.
We are proposing to require that EDRs be capable of capturing up to
3 events in a multi-event crash. For any given event that generates a
change in velocity that equals or exceeds the trigger threshold, the
EDR would be required to record and possibly capture that event and any
subsequent events, up to a total of three, that begin within a 5 second
window from time zero of the first event. Subsequent events are events
that meet the trigger threshold more than 500 milliseconds after time
zero of the immediately preceding event. We note it is very likely that
in a crash, the trigger threshold could be met or exceeded many times
Thus, we are requiring that when the EDR is currently recording event
data, the exceeding of the trigger threshold be disregarded until 500
milliseconds has elapsed.
To prevent unassociated events from being captured in the multi-
event EDR, we are proposing that the maximum time from the beginning of
the first event to the beginning of the third event be limited to 5.0
seconds. To understand the timing between the associated events, we are
proposing to require that the number of associated events be included
as a data element, and that the time from the first to the second event
and the time from the first to the third event also be included as a
data element.
The pre-event data, such as vehicle speed and engine RPM, need to
be recorded continuously. Similarly, pre-event acceleration data need
to be recorded continuously. Finally, pre-event statuses, such as
safety belt usage, determined at -1.0 second, need a similar treatment.
The recording of these data is sometimes referred to as a circular
buffer; that is, data are continuously updated as they are generated.
When the trigger threshold is met, additional types of data are
recorded, including acceleration data and rollover angle.
Capture of EDR data. Once the trigger threshold has been met or
exceeded, the data discussed above are recorded by the EDR. The EDR
continues to analyze the acceleration signal(s) to determine if a
second or third event, determined by the trigger threshold's being
equaled or exceeded more than 500 milliseconds after time zero of the
immediately preceding event, will occur in a possible multi-event
crash. This continues for 5 seconds after time zero of the first event.
A decision is then required to determine if these recorded data
should be captured in the EDR's memory bank or discarded in favor of a
previously captured data set. This decision is based on the maximum
delta-V in the sequence of up to 3 events and air bag deployment
status.
The maximum delta-V for a multi-event crash would be defined as the
absolute value of the maximum of the individual delta-Vs from each of
the events in the crash. Since events in a multi-event crash may occur
from the front, side, or rear, we are proposing that the maximum delta-
V be based on the magnitude of the value, that is, irrespective of the
direction, or sign of the value.
We are proposing that the recorded data be captured in the EDR's
memory only if the maximum delta-V for the recorded crash sequence
exceeds that of the maximum delta-v associated with the data currently
stored in the EDR's memory. We are making this proposal to prevent the
capturing of EDR crash data with data from new events that may occur
subsequent to the event of greatest interest. In the absence of such a
requirement, the trigger threshold might be exceeded when the vehicle
is towed from the scene or moved in a salvage yard, thus capturing a
new record and erasing data regarding the event of greatest interest.
With regard to air bag deployment status, we are proposing that an
event that generates information related to an air bag deployment,
either frontal or side bag systems, must be captured by the EDRs and
cannot be overwritten.
We note that on current GM systems, the EDR locks the data in
memory after a crash that involves an air bag deployment. This results
in the air bag control system's needing replacement as part of the
vehicle's repair after an air bag deployment. On Ford vehicles, the
file is not locked when an air bag deploys. However, it is Ford's
current service policy that the control module must be replaced after
each deployment event.
In the case of multi-event crashes, some of the pre-crash data will
be common to each event. For example, vehicle speed data would be
collected for 8 seconds prior to the first event. If the second event
occurs 1 second later, an additional sample of speed data
[[Page 32945]]
would be recorded before the second event. For these cases, only the
additional pre-crash data that occur during and between the events
would need to be recorded as part of the subsequent event.
To prevent confusion between different multi-event crashes, we are
proposing that if a crash includes an event that has a maximum delta-V
of sufficient magnitude to warrant capturing the data relating to that
event, all previously captured data in the EDR memory must be erased
and replaced with that new data. We believe that unless this is done,
events that occur days or months apart may be mistakenly interpreted as
being part of the same crash.
E. Privacy
The recording of information by EDRs raises a number of potential
privacy issues.\13\ These include the question of who owns the
information that has been recorded, the circumstances under which other
persons may obtain that information, and the purposes for which those
other persons may use that information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ We note that, in some press articles and op-ed pieces,
persons have cited privacy issues as a reason for opposing the basic
concept of EDRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognize the importance of these legal issues. The EDR Working
Group, too, recognized their importance and devoted a considerable
amount of time to discussing them. It also included a chapter on them
in its August 2001 final report. Among other things, the chapter
summarizes the positions that various participants in the EDR Working
Group took on privacy issues.
We also recognize the importance of public acceptance of this
device, whether voluntarily provided by vehicle manufacturers or
required by the government. We note that General Motors informed the
EDR Working Group (Docket No. NHTSA-99-5218-9; section 8.3.5) that it
believes the risk of private citizens reacting negatively to the
``monitoring'' function of the EDR can be addressed through honest and
open communications to customers by means of statements in owners'
manuals informing them that such data are recorded. That company
indicated that the recording of these data is more likely to be
accepted if the data are used to improve the product or improve the
general cause of public safety.
While we believe that continued attention to privacy issues is
important, we observe that, from the standpoint of statutory authority,
our role in protecting privacy is a limited one. For example, we do not
have authority over such areas as who owns the information that has
been recorded. Some of these areas are covered by a variety of Federal
and State laws not administered by NHTSA.
Moreover, we believe that our proposed requirements would not
create any privacy problems. We are not proposing to require the
recording of any data containing any personal or location identifiers.
In addition, given the extremely short duration of the recording of the
information and the fact that it is only recorded for crashes, the
required information could not be used to determine hours of service of
commercial drivers.
The recorded information would be technical, vehicle-related
information covering a very brief period that begins a few seconds
before a crash and ends a few seconds afterwards. Many of these same
data are routinely collected during crash investigations, but are based
on estimations and reconstruction instead of direct data. For example,
investigators currently estimate vehicle speed based on a variety of
factors such as damage to the vehicle. The proposal would simply help
ensure a more accurate determination of these factors by providing
direct measurements of vehicle operation during a crash event.
To help address possible concerns about public knowledge about
EDRs, we are proposing to require manufacturers of vehicles equipped
with EDRs to include a standardized statement in the owner's manual
indicating that the vehicles are equipped with an EDR and that the data
collected in EDRs is used to improve safety.\14\ The proposed statement
would read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ On September 20, 2003, the Governor of California approved
a law requiring that manufacturers of new motor vehicles that are
manufactured on or after July 1, 2004 and are equipped with EDRs
must disclose the existence of the EDRs in the vehicle owner's
manual.
This vehicle is equipped with an event data recorder. In the
event of a crash, this device records data related to vehicle
dynamics and safety systems for a short period of time, typically 30
seconds or less. These data can help provide a better understanding
of the circumstances in which crashes and injuries occur and lead to
the designing of safer vehicles. This device does not collect or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
store personal information.
Moreover, while access to data in EDRs is generally a matter of
state law, we believe that access is and will continue to be possible
in only limited situations. While the proposal would require public
access to information on the protocol for downloading EDR data, this
will not result in public access to EDR data. The interfaces for
downloading EDR data will most likely be in a vehicle's passenger
compartment. The interface locations will not be accessible to
individuals unless they have access to the passenger compartment.
Further, in our own use of information from EDRs, we are careful to
protect privacy. As part of our crash investigations, including those
that utilize EDRs, we often obtain personal information. In handling
this information, the agency complies with applicable provisions of the
Privacy Act of 1974, the Freedom of Information Act (section (b)(6)),
and other statutory requirements that limit the disclosure of personal
information by Federal agencies. In order to gain access to EDR data to
aid our crash investigations, we obtain a release for the data from the
owner of the vehicle. We assure the owner that all personally
identifiable information will be held confidential.
F. Leadtime
We are proposing an effective date of September 1, 2008. This would
enable manufacturers to make design changes to their EDRs as they make
other design changes to their vehicles, thereby minimizing costs.
G. Response to Petition From Dr. Martinez
As discussed earlier, in October 2001, the agency received a
petition from Dr. Ricardo Martinez, President of Safety Intelligence
Systems Corporation, asking us to ``mandate the collection and storage
of onboard vehicle crash event data, in a standardized data and content
format and in a way that is retrievable from the vehicle after the
crash.'' We are granting the petition in part and denying it in part.
As discussed above, our proposed regulation would specify
requirements concerning the collection and storage of onboard vehicle
crash event data by EDRs, in a standard data and content format, and in
a way that is retrievable from the vehicle after the crash. To that
extent, we are granting Dr. Martinez's petition. We are not proposing
to mandate EDRs, however, and to that extent we are denying the
petition.
We believe that the motor vehicle industry is continuing to move
voluntarily in the direction of providing EDRs. As indicated earlier,
we estimate that 65 to 90 percent of model year 2004 passenger cars and
other light vehicles have some recording capability, and that more than
half record such things as crash pulse data.
The trends toward installation of EDRs in greater numbers of motor
vehicles, and toward designing EDRs to record greater amounts of crash
data, are
[[Page 32946]]
continuing ones. General Motors (GM) first began installing EDRs in its
air bag equipped vehicles in the early 1990's. In 1994, that company
began phasing in upgraded EDRs that record crash pulse information. GM
upgraded its EDRs again around 1999-2000 to begin recording pre-crash
information such as vehicle speed, engine RPM, throttle position, and
brake status.
Also around 1999-2000, Ford began equipping the Taurus with EDRs
that recorded both longitudinal and lateral acceleration and several
parameters associated with the restraint systems, including safety belt
use, pretensioner deployment, air bag firing, and others. Also in the
past few years, Toyota began installing EDRs in its vehicles.
As of now, GM, Ford and Toyota record what would be considered a
large amount of crash data. Honda, BMW and some other vehicle
manufacturers record small amounts of crash data.
Given these trends, we do not believe it is necessary for us to
propose to require EDRs at this time.\15\ Moreover, we believe that as
manufacturers provide advanced restraint systems in their vehicles,
such as advanced air bags, they will have increased incentives to equip
their vehicles with EDRs. Vehicle manufacturers will want to understand
the real world performance of the advanced restraint systems they
provide. EDRs will provide important data to help them understand that
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ If our expectations prove incorrect, we may revisit this
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe our focus should be on helping to ensure that when an
EDR is provided in a vehicle, it will record appropriate data in a
consistent format and will be accessible in a manner that makes it
possible for crash investigators and researchers to use them easily.
We note that we believe our proposed regulation would not adversely
affect the numbers of EDRs provided in motor vehicles.\16\ We recognize
that, if a regulation made EDRs costly, it could act as a disincentive
to manufacturers' providing EDRs. However, as discussed earlier,
vehicle manufacturers have minimized the costs of adding EDR capability
by designing the air bag control system to capture into memory data
that are already being processed by the vehicle. Similarly, in
developing our proposal, we focused on the recording of the most
important crash-related data that are already being processed by
vehicles, and not using the rulemaking to require such things as
additional accelerometers. The additional costs associated with an EDR
meeting the proposed requirements, compared with those currently being
provided voluntarily by the vehicle manufacturers, would therefore be
small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See the immediately previous footnote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the potential impacts of this proposed rule
under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures. This document was reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning
and Review.'' This document has been determined to be significant under
the Department's regulatory policies and procedures. While the
potential cost impacts of the proposed rule are far below the level
that would make this a significant rulemaking, the rulemaking addresses
a topic of substantial public interest.
The agency has prepared a separate document addressing the benefits
and costs for the proposed rule. A copy is being placed in the docket.
As discussed in that document and in the preceding sections of this
NPRM, the crash data that would be collected by EDRs under the proposed
rule would be extremely valuable for the improvement of vehicle safety
by improving and facilitating crash investigations, the evaluation of
safety countermeasures, advanced restraint and safety countermeasure
research and development, and advanced ACN. However, the improvement in
vehicle safety would not occur directly from the collection of crash
data by EDRs, but instead from the ways in which the data are used by
researchers, vehicle manufacturers, ACN and EMS providers, government
agencies, and other members of the safety community. Therefore, it is
not presently practical to quantify the safety benefits.
We estimate that about 67 to 90 percent of new light vehicles are
already equipped with EDRs. As discussed earlier, vehicle manufacturers
have provided EDRs in their vehicles by adding EDR capability to their
vehicles' air bag control systems. The costs of EDRs have been
minimized, because they involve the capture into memory of data that is
already being processed by the vehicle, and not the much higher costs
of sensing much of that data in the first place.
The costs of the proposed rule would be the incremental costs for
vehicles equipped with EDRs to comply with the proposed requirements.
As discussed in the agency's separate document on benefits and costs,
we estimate the total annual costs of the proposed rule to range from
$5.7 to $8.6 million. While the potential costs include technology
costs, paperwork maintenance costs, and compliance costs, the paperwork
maintenance and compliance costs are estimated to be negligible. The
proposal would not require additional sensors to be installed in
vehicles, and the major technology cost would result from a need to
upgrade EDR memory chips. The total cost for the estimated 11.2 to 15.2
million vehicles that already have an EDR function to comply with the
proposed regulation is estimated to be $5.7 to $7.7 million. If
manufacturers were to provide EDRs in all 16.8 million light vehicles,
the estimated total cost is $8.6 million. A complete discussion of how
NHTSA arrived at these costs may be found in the separate document on
benefits and costs.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I certify that
the proposed amendment would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The following is the agency's statement providing the factual basis
for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). If adopted, the proposal would
directly affect motor vehicle manufacturers, second stage or final
manufacturers, and alterers. SIC code number 3711, Motor Vehicles and
Passenger Car Bodies, prescribes a small business size standard of
1,000 or fewer employees. SIC code No. 3714, Motor Vehicle Part and
Accessories, prescribes a small business size standard of 750 or fewer
employees.
Only four of the 18 motor vehicle manufacturers affected by this
proposal would qualify as a small business. Most of the intermediate
and final stage manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages
and alterers have 1,000 or fewer employees. However, these small
businesses adhere to original equipment manufacturers' instructions in
manufacturing modified and altered vehicles. Based on our knowledge,
original equipment manufacturers do not permit a final stage
manufacturer or alterer to modify or alter sophisticated devices such
as air bags or EDRs. Therefore, multistage manufacturers and alterers
would be able to rely on the certification and information provided by
the original equipment manufacturer. Accordingly, there would be no
significant impact on small businesses, small organizations, or small
[[Page 32947]]
governmental units by these amendments. For these reasons, the agency
has not prepared a preliminary regulatory flexibility analysis.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. For the
standardization and information collection requirements, NHTSA has
submitted to OMB a request for approval of the following collection of
information. Public comment is sought on the proposed collection.
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Title: Event Data Recorder Information Collection Requirements.
Type of Request: New collection.
OMB Clearance Number: None assigned.
Form Number: This collection of information will not use a standard
form.
Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the date of
approval.
Summary of the Collection of Information: To improve the
availability and usability of data collected by motor vehicle sensors
during a crash event, the proposed regulation would require
manufacturers that voluntarily equip vehicles with an EDR to record
specified data elements and to standardize the format of the resulting
data.
Motor vehicle manufacturers voluntarily equipping vehicles with an
EDR would also be required to submit information to the agency on
accessing and retrieving the stored data. The technical specifications
would be required to be of sufficient detail to permit an individual to
design and build a tool for accessing and downloading the data in the
specified format. This information would be required to be submitted
not later than 90 days before the beginning of the production year in
which the EDR equipped vehicles are to be offered for sale.
Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: The information sought by NHTSA in this collection would
be used by the agency and crash investigators (e.g., other government
agencies, police investigators, motor vehicle crash researchers, etc.)
to access and retrieve standardized crash data from voluntarily
installed EDRs. Improving the availability of crash event data would
permit the agency to improve analysis of a restraint system's crash
protection performance and the determination of crash-avoidance system
effectiveness. Improving the data elements and data available to the
agency would allow NHTSA to make more targeted rulemaking decisions,
thus improving overall vehicle safety in the future.
Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information):
NHTSA estimates that a maximum of 18 vehicle manufacturers would submit
the required information. The manufacturers are makers of passenger
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a
GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight
of 2,495 kg (5,500 pounds). For each report, a manufacturer would
provide, in addition to its identity: (1) Non-proprietary technical
information of sufficient detail to permit an individual to design and
build a tool to download the EDR data in the specified format and (2)
information of sufficient detail to permit access to the data in each
vehicle make and model produced by the manufacturer that is equipped
with an EDR.
Manufacturers would be required to submit the above information
once per year.
Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information: NHTSA estimates that each
manufacturer would incur a total of 30 burden hours per year under this
collection. The agency estimates that each manufacturer would incur 20
burden hours per year to comply with the information collection and 10
burden hours per year for data standardization. The estimate for the
hour burden arising from the information submission is based on the
fact that manufacturers would be submitting existing information from
its vehicle production data and equipment specification data. As the
industry voluntarily standardizes EDR output, the agency anticipates
this burden would decrease because manufacturers will be able to cite
voluntary industry standards in place of technical specifications. The
burden arising from the recordkeeping portion of this request would be
a result of manufacturers reprogramming existing sensor systems to meet
the data standardization requirements of this program. Given the lead
time of the proposed regulation, this reprogramming could be
accomplished during a scheduled upgrade of a motor vehicle's sensor
systems. This one time reprogramming cost is estimated between $100,000
and $180,000, for the entire industry. Once a manufacturer has
standardized all of the existing sensors, we would anticipate this
burden to be reduced to a minimal number.
NHTSA estimates the total annual burden hours to be $18,900. (30
burden hours x 18 manufacturers x $35/burden hour)
If a manufacturer needed to increase the electronic storage
capability of the existing sensors to comply with the proposal, this
would result in an additional cost of $0.50 per vehicle. As discussed
above and in the separate document on costs and benefits, the estimated
cost for the entire industry from the increased memory and software
reprogramming is $5.7 to $8.6 million.
Persons desiring to submit comments on the information collection
requirements should direct them to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC, 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of
Transportation.
The agency will consider comments by the public on this proposed
collection of information in:
Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NHTSA,
including whether the information will have a practical use;
Evaluating the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimizing the burden of collection of information on
those who are to respond, including collection techniques or other
forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission
of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in the proposed regulation between 30 and 60 days
after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore,
a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the
deadline for the public to comment to NHTSA on the proposed regulation.
NHTSA requests comments on its estimates of the total annual hour
and cost burdens resulting from this collection of information. Please
submit comments according to the instructions under the Comments
heading of this
[[Page 32948]]
notice. Comments are due by August 13, 2004.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a
regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or the agency consults
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. NHTSA may also not issue a regulation with
Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with
the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has
determined that, although the proposed regulation would preempt
conflicting State law, it does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed
rule would have no substantial effects on the States, or on the current
Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various local officials.
F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under
section 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not
identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state
requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to
vehicles procured for the state's use. This section would not apply to
the proposed rule, because it would not be a Federal motor vehicle
safety standard. General principles of preemption law would apply,
however, to displace any conflicting state law or regulations. If the
proposed rule were made final, there would be no requirement for
submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties could file suit in court.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
As discussed above, both the SAE Vehicle Event Data Interface
(J1698-1) Committee and the IEEE Motor Vehicle Event Data Recorder
(MVDER) working group (P1616) are developing standards specific to
EDRs. While there are currently no voluntary consensus standards for
EDR data elements or data format, the agency will consider such
standards when they are available. Where appropriate, the agency has
incorporated by reference SAE J211, Class 60 for the specified data
filtering requirements.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $ 100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA 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 NHTSA 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 why that
alternative was not adopted. If adopted, this proposed rule would not
impose any unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995. This proposed rule would not result in costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
I. 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.
IV. Submission of Comments
How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed correctly in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21)
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
ADDRESSES. You may also submit your comments to the docket
electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System (DMS) Web
site at http://dms.dot.go. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/
Info'' to obtain instructions for filing your comments electronically.
Please note, if you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF
(Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency
to
[[Page 32949]]
search and copy certain portions of your submissions.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.
How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in NHTSA's confidential
business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?
NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, the agency will also
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If
Docket Management receives a comment too late for the agency to
consider it in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued),
the agency will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for
future rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location.
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, take the following steps:
1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov).
2. On that page, click on ``search.''
3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search), type in the
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document.
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would
type ``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information
for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents,
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the
documents are word searchable.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
the agency recommends that you periodically check the Docket for new
material.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 563
Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend chapter
V of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding 49 CFR part
563 to read as follows:
PART 563--EVENT DATA RECORDERS
Sec.
563.1 Scope.
563.2 Purpose.
563.3 Application.
563.4 Incorporation by reference.
563.5 Definitions.
563.6 Requirements for vehicles.
563.7 Data elements.
563.8 Data format.
563.9 Data capture.
563.10 Crash test performance and survivability.
563.11 Information in owner's manual.
563.12 Data retrieval information.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, 30168;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 563.1 Scope.
This part specifies uniform, national requirements for vehicles
equipped with event data recorders (EDRs) concerning the collection,
storage and retrievability of onboard motor vehicle crash event data.
It also specifies requirements for vehicle manufacturers to make
publicly available information that would enable crash investigators
and researchers to retrieve data from EDRs.
Sec. 563.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to help ensure that EDRs record, in a
readily usable manner, the data necessary for effective crash
investigations, analysis of the performance of safety equipment, e.g.,
advanced restraint systems, and automatic crash notification systems.
These data will help provide a better understanding of the
circumstances in which crashes and injuries occur and will lead to the
designing of safer vehicles.
Sec. 563.3 Application.
This part applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8500 pounds) or
less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 pounds) or less,
except for walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles designed to be sold
exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service, that are equipped with an event
data recorder (EDR) and to manufacturers of these vehicles.
Sec. 563.4 Incorporation by reference.
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice
J211-1, March 1995, ``Instrumentation For Impact Test--Part 1--
Electronic Instrumentation'' (SAE J211-1) is incorporated by reference,
and is hereby made part of this regulation. The Director of the Federal
Register approved the material incorporated by reference in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 (see Sec. 571.5 of this part).
A copy of SAE J211-1 may be obtained from SAE at the Society of
Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA
15096. A copy of SAE J211-1 may be inspected at NHTSA's technical
reference library, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5109, Washington, DC,
or at the Office of the Federal Register, 900 North Capitol Street,
NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
Sec. 563.5 Definitions.
(a) Motor vehicle safety standard definitions. Unless otherwise
indicated, all terms that are used in this part and are defined in the
Motor Vehicle Safety
[[Page 32950]]
Standards, part 571 of this subchapter, are used as defined therein.
(b) Other definitions.
ABS activity means the anti-lock brake system (ABS) is actively
controlling the vehicle's brakes.
Capture means the process of saving recorded data.
Delta-v means, for vehicles with only longitudinal acceleration
measurement capability, the change in velocity of the vehicle along the
longitudinal axis, and for vehicles with both longitudinal and lateral
acceleration measurement capability, the change in velocity of the
resultant of the longitudinal and lateral vehicle velocity time-
histories, within the time interval starting from the time zero and
ending 500 ms after time zero.
Deployment level means the highest-level inflator ignited in an air
bag deployment.
Disposal means the deployment of the second (or higher, if present)
stage of a frontal air bag for the purpose of disposing the propellant
from the air bag device.
Engine RPM means, for vehicles powered by internal combustion
engines, the number of revolutions per minute of the main crankshaft of
the vehicle's engine, and for vehicles not powered by internal
combustion engines, the number of revolutions per minute of the motor
shaft at the point at which it enters the vehicle transmission gearbox.
Engine throttle, percent full means, for vehicles powered by
internal combustion engines, the percent of the engine throttle opening
compared to the full open position of the engine throttle opening, and
for vehicles not powered by internal combustion engines, the percent of
vehicle accelerator depression compared to the fully depressed
position.
Event means a crash or other physical occurrence that causes the
trigger threshold to be met or exceeded after the end of the 500 ms
period for recording data regarding the immediately previous event.
Event data recorder (EDR) means a device or function in a vehicle
that records any vehicle or occupant-based data just prior to or during
a crash, such that the data can be retrieved after the crash. For
purposes of this definition, vehicle or occupant-based data include any
of the data elements listed in Table I of this part.
Forward seat position means a seat position that is in the
forwardmost third of the measured distance between the full forward and
the mid-track positions of the seat.
Frontal air bag means the primary inflatable occupant restraint
device that is designed to deploy in a frontal crash to protect the
front seat occupants.
Ignition cycle, crash means the number (count) of the ignition key
applications sufficient to start the engine and/or the power vehicle
accessories, from the date of manufacture to and including the time of
the event.
Ignition cycle download means the number (count) of the ignition
key applications sufficient to start the engine and/or the power
vehicle accessories, from the date of manufacture to and including the
time when the data are downloaded from the EDR.
Lateral acceleration means the component of the vector acceleration
of a point in the vehicle in the y-direction. The lateral acceleration
is positive from left to right, from the perspective of the driver when
seated in the vehicle facing the direction of forward vehicle travel.
Longitudinal acceleration means the component of the vector
acceleration of a point in the vehicle in the x-direction. The
longitudinal acceleration is positive in the direction of forward
vehicle travel.
Multi-event crash means the occurrence of 2 or more events, the
first and last of which begin not more than 5 seconds apart.
Normal acceleration means the component of the vector acceleration
of a point in the vehicle in the z-direction. The normal acceleration
is positive in a downward direction.
Occupant size classification means, for the right front passenger,
the classification of an occupant as an adult or a child occupant, and
for the driver, the classification of the driver as being or not being
a small female.
Pretensioner means a device that is activated by a vehicle's crash
sensing system and removes slack from a vehicle belt system.
Record means the process of storing data into volatile memory for
later use.
Safety belt status means an occupant's safety belt is buckled or
not buckled.
Seat position means the position of a seat along the track for
moving the seat in a forward or rearward direction.
Service brake, on, off means the vehicle's service brake is being
applied or not being applied.
Side air bag means any inflatable occupant restraint device that is
mounted to the seat or side structure of the vehicle interior at or
below the window sill, and that is designed to deploy and protect the
occupants in a side impact crash.
Side curtain/tube air bag means any inflatable occupant restraint
device that is mounted to the side structure of the vehicle interior
above the window sill, and that is designed to deploy and protect the
occupants in a side impact crash or rollover.
Speed, vehicle indicated means the speed indicated on the vehicle's
speedometer.
Stability control means any device that is not directly controlled
by the operator (e.g., steering or brakes) and is intended to prevent
loss of vehicle control by sensing, interpreting, and adjusting a
vehicle's driving and handling characteristics.
Steering wheel angle means the angular displacement of the steering
wheel measured from the straight-ahead position (position corresponding
to zero average steer angle of a pair of steered wheels).
Suppression switch status means the status of the switch indicating
whether an air bag suppression system is on or off.
Time to deploy means the elapsed time between time zero and the
time when the inflator of a side air bag or side curtain/tube air bag
is fired.
Time to first stage means the elapsed time between time zero and
the time when the first stage of a frontal air bag is fired.
Time to nth stage means the elapsed time between time zero and the
time when the second stage of a frontal air bag is fired.
Time zero means the beginning of the first 20 ms interval in which
the trigger threshold is met during an event.
Trigger threshold means a change in vehicle velocity, in the
longitudinal direction for vehicles with only longitudinal acceleration
measurements or in the horizontal plane for vehicles with both
longitudinal and lateral measurements, that equals or exceeds 0.8 km/h
within a 20 ms interval.
Vehicle roll angle means the angle between the vehicle y-axis and
the ground plane.
X-direction means in the direction of the vehicle X-axis, which is
parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline.
Y-direction means in the direction of the vehicle Y-axis, which is
perpendicular to its X-axis and in the same horizontal plane as that
axis.
Z-direction means in the direction of the vehicle Z-axis, which is
perpendicular to its X and Y-axes.
Sec. 563.6 Requirements for vehicles.
Each vehicle equipped with an EDR must meet the requirements
specified in Sec. 563.7 for data elements, Sec. 563.8 for data
format, Sec. 563.9 for data capture, Sec. 563.10 for crash test
performance and survivability, and Sec. 563.11 for information in
owner's manual.
[[Page 32951]]
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,
during the interval/time and at the sample rate specified in that
table.
Table I.--Data Elements Required for all Vehicles Equipped With an EDR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data sample
Data element Recording interval/time (relative to time zero) rate samples
per second
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longitudinal acceleration.................... -0.1 to 0.5 sec.................................. 500
Maximum delta-V.............................. Computed after event............................. N.A.
Speed, vehicle indicated..................... -8.0 to 0 sec.................................... 2
Engine RPM................................... -8.0 to 0 sec.................................... 2
Engine throttle, % full...................... -8.0 to 0 sec.................................... 2
Service brake, on/off........................ -8.0 to 0 sec.................................... 2
Ignition cycle, crash........................ -1.0 sec......................................... N.A.
Ignition cycle, download..................... At time of download.............................. N.A.
Safety belt status, driver................... -1.0 sec......................................... N.A.
Frontal air bag warning lamp, on/off......... -1.0 sec......................................... N.A.
Frontal air bag deployment level, driver..... Event............................................ N.A.
Frontal air bag deployment level, right front Event............................................ N.A.
passenger.
Frontal air bag deployment, time to deploy, Event............................................ N.A.
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, time to deploy, Event............................................ N.A.
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 events (1, 2, 3)...... Event............................................ N.A.
Time from event 1 to 2....................... As needed........................................ N.A.
Time from event 1 to 3....................... As needed........................................ N.A.
Complete file recorded (yes, no)............. Following other data............................. N.A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Data elements required for vehicles under specified conditions.
Each vehicle equipped with an EDR must record each of the data elements
listed in column 1 of Table II for which the vehicle meets the
condition specified in column 2 of that table, during the interval/time
and at the sample rate specified in that table.
Table II.--Data Elements Required for Vehicles Under Specified Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data
Condition for Recording interval/time (relative to sample
Data element name requirement time zero) rate (per
second)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lateral acceleration................ If vehicle is equipped -0.1 to 0.5 sec........................ 500
to measure
acceleration in the
vehicle's lateral (y)
direction.
Normal acceleration................. If vehicle is equipped -0.1 to 0.5 sec........................ 500
to measure
acceleration in the
vehicle's normal (z)
direction.
Vehicle roll angle.................. If vehicle equipped to -1.0 to 6.0 sec........................ 10
measure or compute
vehicle roll angle.
ABS activity (engaged, non-engaged). If vehicle equipped -8.0 to 0 sec.......................... 2
with ABS.
Stability control, on, off, engaged. If vehicle equipped -8.0 to 0 sec.......................... 2
with stability
control, ESP, or
other yaw control
system.
Steering input (steering wheel If vehicle equipped to -8.0 to 0 sec.......................... 2
angle). measure steering
wheel steer angle.
Safety belt status, right front If vehicle equipped to -1.0 sec............................... N.A.
passenger (buckled, not buckled). measure safety belt
buckle latch status
for the right front
passenger.
Frontal air bag suppression switch If vehicle equipped -1.0 sec............................... N.A.
status, right front passenger (on, with a manual switch
off, or auto). to supress the
frontal air bag for
the right front
passenger.
Frontal air bag deployment, time to If vehicle equipped Event.................................. N.A.
nth stage, driver \1\. with a driver's
frontal air bag with
a multi-stage
inflator.
Frontal air bag deployment, time to If vehicle equipped Event.................................. N.A.
nth stage right front passenger \1\. with a right front
passenger's frontal
air bag with a multi-
stage inflator.
Frontal air bag deployment, nth If vehicle equipped Event.................................. N.A.
stage disposal, driver, Y/N with a driver's
(whether the nth stage deployment frontal air bag with
was for occupant restraint or a multi-stage that
propellant disposal purposes) \1\. can be ignited for
the sole purpose of
disposing of the
propellant.
Frontal air bag deployment, nth If vehicle equipped Event.................................. N.A.
stage disposal, right front with a right front
passenger, Y/N (whether the nth passenger's frontal
stage deployment was for occupant air bag with a
restraint or propellant disposal multistage that can
purposes) \1\. be ignited for the
sole purpose of
disposing of the
propellant.
Side air bag deployment, time to If the vehicle is Event.................................. N.A.
deploy, driver. equipped with a side
air bag for the
driver.
Side air bag deployment, time to If the vehicle is Event.................................. N.A.
deploy, right front passenger. equipped with a side
air bag for the right
front passenger.
[[Page 32952]]
Side curtain/tube air bag If the vehicile is Event.................................. N.A.
deployment, time to deploy, drive equipped with a side
side. curtain or tube air
bag for the driver.
Side curtain/tube air bag If the vehicile is Event.................................. N.A.
deployment, time to deploy, drive equipped with a side
side. curtain or tube air
bag for the right
front passenger.
Pretensioner deployment, time to If the vehicle is Event.................................. N.A.
fire, driver. equipped with a
pretensioner for the
driver safety belt
system.
Pretensioner deployment, time to If the vehicle is Event.................................. N.A.
fire, right front passenger. equipped with a
pretensioner for the
right front passenger
safety belt system.
Seat position, driver (whether or If the vehicle is -1.0................................... N.A.
not the seat is in a forward seat equipped to determine
position). whether or not the
seat is in a forward
seat position.
Seat position, passenger (whether or If the vehicle is -1.0................................... N.A.
not the right front passenger seat equipped to determine
is in a forward seat position). whether or not the
right front passenger
seat is in a forward
seat position.
Occupant size classification, driver If the vehicle is -1.0................................... N.A.
equipped to determine
the size
classification of the
driver.
Occupant size classification, right If the vehicle is -1.0................................... N.A.
front passenger. equipped to determine
the size
classification of the
right front passenger.
Occupant position classification, If the vehicle is -1.0................................... N.A.
driver. equipped to
dynamically determine
position of the
driver.
Occupant position classification, If the vehicle is -1.0................................... N.A.
right front passenger. equipped to
dynamically determine
position of the right
front occupant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ List this element n-1 times, once for each stage of a multi-stage air bag system.
Sec. 563.8 Data format.
(a) The data elements listed in Tables I and II, as applicable,
must be recorded in accordance with the range, accuracy, precision, and
filter class specified in Table III.
Table III.--Recorded Data Element Format
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data element Range Accuracy Precision Filter class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longitudinal acceleration....... -100G to +100G.... 1G.... 1G................ SAE J211, Class
60.
Lateral acceleration............ -100G to +100G.... 1G.... 1G................ SAE J211, Class
60.
Normal acceleration............. -100G to +100G.... 1G.... 1G................ SAE J211, Class
60.
Delta-v......................... -100km/h to 100 km/ 1 km/h 1 km/h............ N.A.
h.
Vehicle roll angle.............. -1080deg to 10 deg 10 deg............ N.A.
+1080Deg.
Speed, vehicle indicated........ 0 km/h to 200 km/h 1 km/h 1 km/h............ N.A.
Engine rpm...................... 0 to 10,000 rpm... 100 100 km/h.......... N.A.
rpm.
Engine throttle, percent full... 0 to 100%......... 5%.... 5 %............... N.A.
Service brake, on, off.......... On and Off........ N.A............... On and Off........ N.A.
ABS activity.................... On and Off........ N.A............... On and Off........ N.A.
Stability control, on, off, On, Off, Engaged.. N.A............... On, Off, Engaged.. N.A.
engaged.
Steering wheel angle............ -250 deg CW to 5 deg. 5 deg............. N.A.
+250 deg CCW.
Ignition cycle, crash........... 0 to 60,000....... 1 1 cycle........... N.A.
cycle.
Ignition cycle, download........ 0 to 60,000....... 1 1 cycle........... N.A.
cycle.
Safety belt status, driver...... On or Off......... N.A............... On or Off......... N.A.
Safety belt status, right front On or Off......... N.A............... On or Off......... N.A.
passenger.
Frontal air bag suppression On or Off......... N.A............... On or Off......... N.A.
switch status, right front
passenger.
Frontal air bag warning lamp, On of Off......... N.A............... On or Off......... N.A.
on, off.
Frontal air bag deployment 1 to 100.......... 0..... 1................. N.A.
level, driver.
Frontal air bag deployment 1 to 100.......... 0..... 1................. N.A.
level, right front passenger.
Frontal air bag deployment, time 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 2 ms.............. N.A.
to deploy/first stage, driver.
Frontal air bag deployment, time 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 2 ms.............. N.A.
to deploy/first stage, right
front passenger.
[[Page 32953]]
Frontal air bag deployment, time 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 2 ms.............. N.A.
to nth stage, driver.
Frontal air bag deployment, time 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 2 ms.............. N.A.
to nth stage, right front
passenger.
Frontal air bag deployment, nth Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
stage disposal, driver, y/n.
Frontal air bag deployment, nth Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
stage disposal, right front
passenger, y/n.
Side air bag deployment, time to 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 2 ms.............. N.A.
deploy, driver.
Side air bag deployment, time to 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 2 ms.............. N.A.
deploy, right front passenger.
Side curtain/tube air bag 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 2 ms.............. N.A.
deployment, time to deploy,
driver side.
Side curtain/tube air bag 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 2 ms.............. N.A.
deployment, time to deploy,
right side.
Pretensioner deployment, time to 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 2 ms.............. N.A.
fire, driver.
Pretensioner deployment, time to 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 2 ms.............. N.A.
fire, right front passenger.
Seat position, driver........... Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
Seat position, right front Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
passenger.
Occupant size driver occupant Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
5th female size y/n.
Occupant size right front Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
passenger child y/n.
Occupant position Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
classification, driver oop y/n.
Occupant position Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
classification, right front
passenger oop y/n.
Multi-event, number of events 1,2 or 3.......... N.A............... 1,2 or 3.......... N.A.
(1,2,3).
Time from event 1 to 2.......... 0 to 5.0.......... 0.1 sec........... 0.1 sec........... N.A.
Time from event 1 to 3.......... 0 to 5.0.......... 0.1 sec........... 0.1 sec........... N.A.
Complete file recorded (Yes/No). Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Acceleration Time-History data and format: The longitudinal,
lateral, and normal acceleration time-history data, as applicable, must
be recorded to include:
(1) The Time Step (TS) that is the inverse of the sampling
frequency of the acceleration data and which has units of seconds;
(2) The number of the first point (NFP), which is an integer that
when multiplied by the TS equals the time relative to time zero of the
first acceleration data point;
(3) The number of the last point (NLP), which is an integer that
when multiplied by the TS equals the time relative to time zero of the
last acceleration data point; and
(4) NLP-NFP+1 acceleration values sequentially beginning with the
acceleration at time NFP*TS and continue sampling the acceleration at
TS increments in time until the time NLP*TS is reached.
Sec. 563.9 Data capture.
The EDR must collect and store the data elements for events in
accordance with the following conditions and circumstances:
(a) The EDR collects data for an event, starting at time zero and
ending 500 ms later.
(b) The EDR must be capable of recording not less than 3 events in
a multi-event crash.
(c) The highest delta-v of any of the events in a crash sequence is
used to quantify the maximum delta-v for a multi-event crash.
(d) If an air bag, either side or frontal, deployment occurs in a
single or multi-event crash, the data captured from any previous crash
must be deleted, the data related to that deployment must be captured
and the memory must be locked to prevent any future overwriting of
these data.
(e) If an air bag deployment does not occur and if the absolute
value of the maximum delta-v recorded from a multi-event crash is
greater than the absolute value of the maximum delta-v currently stored
in the EDR's memory, delete all previously captured data in the EDR's
memory and capture the current data.
(f) If an air bag deployment does not occur and if the absolute
value of the maximum delta-v from a multi-event crash is less than or
equal to the
[[Page 32954]]
absolute value of the maximum delta-v currently in the EDR's memory, do
not capture the recorded data.
Sec. 563.10 Crash test performance and survivability.
(a) Each vehicle subject to the requirements of S13 of Sec.
571.208, Occupant crash protection, must comply with the requirements
in subpart (d) of this section when tested according to S13 of Sec.
571.208. Any vehicle subject to the requirements of S5, S14.5 or S17 of
Sec. 571.208 must comply with the requirements in subpart (d) of this
section when tested according to S5, S8, and S18 of Sec. 571.208.
(b) Any vehicle subject to the requirements of Sec. 571.214, Side
impact protection, must comply with the requirements of subpart (d) of
this section when tested in a 33.5 miles per hour impact in which the
car is struck on either side by a moving deformable barrier under the
test conditions in S6 of Sec. 571.214.
(c) Any vehicle subject to the requirements of S6.2 of Sec.
571.301, Fuel system integrity, must comply with the requirements in
subpart (d) of this section when tested according to the conditions in
S7.3 of Sec. 571.301.
(d) The data elements required by Sec. 563.7 must be recorded in
the format specified by Sec. 563.8, exist at the completion of the
crash test, and be retrievable by the methodology specified by the
vehicle manufacturer under Sec. 563.12 for not less than 30 days after
the test and without external power, and the complete data recorded
element must read yes after the test.
Sec. 563.11 Information in owner's manual.
The owner's manual must contain the following statement: ``This
vehicle is equipped with an event data recorder. In the event of a
crash, this device records data related to vehicle dynamics and safety
systems for a short period of time, typically 30 seconds or less. These
data can help provide a better understanding of the circumstances in
which crashes and injuries occur and lead to the designing of safer
vehicles. This device does not collect or store personal information.''
Sec. 563.12 Data retrieval information.
(a) Information filing requirements.
(1) Each manufacturer of a motor vehicle equipped with an EDR must
furnish non-proprietary technical specifications at a level of detail
sufficient to permit companies that manufacture diagnostic tools to
develop and build a device capable of accessing, retrieving,
interpreting, and converting the data stored in the EDR that are
required by this part.
(2) The technical information provided under paragraph (a)(1) must
identify the make, model, and model year of each vehicle equipped with
an EDR, specify the interface locations and permit the access,
retrieval, interpretation and conversion of the data in an identifiable
manner consistent with the requirements of this part for each vehicle
of every identified make, model, and model year. If the information
differs for different vehicles of same make, model, and model year, the
information provided must explain how the VINs for the vehicles of that
make, model and model year can be used to determine which aspects of
the information apply to a particular vehicle.
(b) Submission of information.
(1) This information must be submitted to Docket No. (a specific
docket number would be included in the final rule) Docket Management,
Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Alternatively, the information may be submitted electronically by
logging onto the Docket Management System (DMS) Web site at http://dms.dot.gov, using the same docket number.
(2) The manufacturer must submit such information not later than 90
days prior to the start of production of the EDR-equipped makes and
models to which that information relates. In addition, the manufacturer
must update the information, as necessary to keep it accurate, not
later than 90 days prior to any changes that would make the previously
submitted information no longer valid.
Issued on: June 7, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-13241 Filed 6-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P