[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 198 (Friday, October 11, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63493-63497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-26006]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-02-13546; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AI72


Event Data Recorders

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

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Over the past several years, NHTSA has been actively involved 
with Event Data Recorders (EDRs) in motor vehicles. EDRs collect 
vehicle and occupant-based crash information. The agency's involvement 
has included sponsoring two working groups, using data from EDRs in 
crash investigations, and conducting research and development. 
Particularly since the two working groups have completed their work, we 
request comments on what future role the agency should take related to 
the continued development and installation of EDRs in motor vehicles.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that 
Docket Management receives them not later than January 9, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 
Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by logging 
onto the Docket Management System (DMS) Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. 
Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to view instructions 
for filing your comments electronically. Regardless of how you submit 
your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.

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, NPS-11, telephone (202) 366-4922, facsimile 
(202) 366-4329.
    For legal issues: J. Edward Glancy, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
NCC-20, telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Discussion of Issues
    a. Safety benefits
    b. Technical issues
    c. Privacy issues
    d. Role of NHTSA
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
IV. Submission of Comments

I. Introduction

    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.
    Types and uses of EDRs. EDRs collect vehicle and occupant-based 
crash information. They can be simple or complex in design, scope, and 
reach. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Since the term ``EDR'' can be used to cover many different 
types of devices, we believe it is important to define 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 information collected by EDRs aids investigations of the causes 
of crashes and injury mechanisms, and makes it possible to better 
define safety problems. The information can ultimately 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. Moreover, these 
devices have become more advanced with respect to the amount and type 
of data recorded. We estimate that essentially all model year 2002 
passenger cars and other light vehicles have some recording capability, 
and that more than half record such things as crash pulse data.
    Research and development. 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.'' 
Also, in that year, the National

[[Page 63494]]

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory 
(JPL) recommended that NHTSA ``study the feasibility of installing and 
obtaining crash data for safety analyses from crash recorders on 
vehicles.'' 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 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.
    The NHTSA EDR Working Group held six meetings between October 1998 
and December 2000. The Working Group explored both original equipment 
manufacturer (OEM) and aftermarket systems, and also looked into data 
collection and storage.
    In August 2001, the NHTSA 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)

    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.

    The record of the NHTSA EDR Working Group, including both minutes 
of the meetings and the final report, is in Docket NHTSA-99-5218. 
Persons interested in additional information about EDRs may wish to 
examine section 12 of the final report, which sets forth a bibliography 
and references.
    Meanwhile, 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. The record of this second Working Group is in Docket 
NHTSA-2000-7699. Its final report was published in May 2002.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2001, NHTSA developed a website for highway-based EDRs located 
at the following address: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/edr-site/index.html.
    Federal Register notices. On two previous occasions, the agency has 
published documents in the Federal Register addressing particular 
questions about its role with respect to EDRs. Both occasions involved 
the denial of a petition 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.''
    The agency has also received a third petition, from Dr. Ricardo 
Martinez, President of Safety Intelligence Systems Corporation, asking 
us to require the installation of EDRs in new motor vehicles. We have 
not yet responded to that petition. Copies of our responses to the two 
earlier petitions, and a copy of the petition submitted by Dr. 
Martinez, are being placed in the docket for this document.
    Future actions. In light of the foregoing, the agency believes that 
it is appropriate to consider what role the agency should now be taking 
regarding the continued development of EDRs and their installation in 
motor vehicles.

II. Discussion of Issues

    This section discusses a range of issues and presents a series of 
questions for public comment to aid the agency in evaluating what role 
it should take at this time relating to EDRs. The issues and questions 
are grouped as follows: (a) safety benefits, (b) technical issues, and 
(c) privacy issues. Finally, in section (d), we ask a general question 
about NHTSA's role in this area.

a. Safety Benefits

    As we noted earlier, the information collected by EDRs aids 
investigations of the causes of crashes and injury mechanisms, and 
makes it possible to better define safety problems. This information 
can ultimately be used to improve motor vehicle safety. By way of 
illustration, the more that is known about such things as the change in 
velocity in real crashes and the more that is known about how key 
safety countermeasures work in real crashes (e.g., which stage of a 
multi-stage air bag fired), the better the chances are of developing 
improved safety countermeasures and test procedures.
    We invite comments on the following questions related to safety 
benefits:
    (1) Safety potential. The NHTSA EDR Working Group concluded in its 
August 2001 final report (section 11.1) that EDRs have the potential to 
improve highway safety greatly. Do you agree with this finding? What do 
you see as the most significant safety potential of EDRs?
    (2) Application. EDR technology has potential safety applications 
for all classes of motor vehicles. Do you believe different types of 
EDRs should be used for different vehicle types, such as light duty 
vehicles, heavy trucks,

[[Page 63495]]

intercity motor coaches, city transit buses and school buses? If so, 
why? If not, why not? Do you believe different types of EDRs should be 
used for different applications, such as private vehicles and 
commercial vehicles? If so, why? If not, why not?
    (3) Use of EDR data. NHTSA has used EDR data primarily to improve 
its investigations and analyses of crashes. In some cases, EDR data 
includes information that the agency could not otherwise obtain; e.g., 
which stage(s) of a multi-stage air bag deployed in a crash and when. 
In other cases, EDR data provide a more accurate indication of matters, 
e.g., level of crash severity, that have previously been estimated 
based on crash reconstruction programs. NHTSA includes the new or 
improved information from EDRs in its crash databases as appropriate. 
We request comments concerning how other parties, including government 
agencies, vehicle manufacturers, insurance companies, and researchers, 
are using these data. We also request comments concerning other 
potential uses of these data, by NHTSA and/or other parties, which are 
related to improving vehicle safety, either in the short term or long 
term.
    (4) Future safety benefits. What additional safety benefits are 
likely from continued development, installation, collection, storage, 
and use of EDRs?
    (5) Research databases. NHTSA acquires EDR data in its Special 
Crash Investigations (SCI), National Automotive Sampling System 
Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS), and Crash Injury Research and 
Engineering Network (CIREN) and incorporates them in its motor vehicle 
research databases. Have you ever used the EDR data stored in these 
databases? How could the presentation and/or use of EDR data be 
improved?
    (6) Prevention of crashes. Several researchers have documented that 
the use of EDRs could have the potential to prevent crashes. Some 
studies of European fleets found that driver and employee awareness of 
an on-board EDR reduced the number of crashes by 20 to 30 percent, 
lowered the severity of such crashes, and decreased the associated 
costs. (See section 2.5.1.1 of the August 2001 NHTSA EDR Working Group 
final report.) These studies have generally been based on small samples 
and concentrated on commercial application of EDRs. We request comments 
on other studies of this type and on this potential benefit from EDRs, 
particularly for the U.S. driving population.
    (7) Possible new databases. As more and more vehicles are equipped 
with EDRs, more EDR crash data will be generated. Collection of these 
data is likely to increase as state and local officials collect these 
data as part of their investigations. Do you have any recommendations 
for storing and maintaining a national or other database? Do you 
believe maintaining a database would be beneficial to motor vehicle 
safety? Please provide specific examples.
    (8) Standards. What standards exist for collecting EDR data? The 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has a recommended practice (SAE 
J211) that provides guidance for collecting crash test data. Would it 
be possible to use this or similar standards for collecting EDR data 
regarding real-world crashes? The Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) has recently initiated a new program 
to develop a standard for motor vehicle EDRs.\4\ We request comments on 
the current activities of SAE, IEEE, and other standards organizations 
(U.S. and international) in developing standards for EDRs, and on what 
types of standards should be developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ IEEE's program is titled IEEE Project 1616: Draft Standard, 
Motor Vehicle Event Data Recorders (MVEDRs). The web address for 
this program is http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1616/home.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (9) Standardization. We request comments on whether there would be 
any safety benefits from standardizing certain aspects of EDRs, e.g., 
defining specific data elements such as vehicle speed, brake 
application, air bag deployment time, etc. Would such standardization 
promote further development and implementation of automatic crash 
notification systems or other safety devices?

b. Technical Issues

    (10) Data elements. The NHTSA EDR Working Group identified many 
data elements that could be collected by an EDR. See section 4 of the 
August 2001 final report.\5\ More recently, the Truck & Bus EDR Working 
Group generated a list of 28 data elements. See section 4 of the May 
2002 final report.\6\ What data elements should be considered for 
inclusion in an EDR? Should they vary by vehicle type and/or 
application? Please provide a rationale for each element, with 
particular emphasis on how it would lead to improvements in safety. 
What costs are related to each of your proposed data elements?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Docket No. NHTSA-99-5218-9.
    \6\ Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7699-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (11) Amount of data. Many late-model vehicles are equipped with 
OEM-installed EDRs, but even among the vehicles of a given 
manufacturer, the type and amount of data collected vary. Do you have 
any recommendations for the amount of data to collect; e.g., how long 
before the crash occurs should the data be collected? How should the 
data integrity be maintained?
    (12) Storage and collection. Currently, data are accessed by a 
physical connection to the EDR unit. Manufacturers are developing 
wireless connections, e.g., using a wireless probe near the crashed 
vehicle, or by having the on-board device upload the stored data to a 
central location using a telecommunications link, but such devices are 
not in widespread production. How should data be collected and stored 
in a motor vehicle? What measures should be in place to control 
traceability of EDR data to an actual vehicle or crash, such as EDR IDs 
or location and date stamping?
    (13) Training. What training is needed for EDR data collection 
officials?
    (14) Survivability. Recording and power systems need to withstand 
temperature and environmental effects, power failures, and the forces 
of different types and modes of crashes. They also need to be tamper 
proof. How can all these be accomplished? What needs to be done to 
ensure survivability of an EDR? What level of crash severity should an 
EDR be able to survive? What are the costs associated with producing an 
EDR with this level of crash survivability?
    (15) Effect of EDR technologies on your responses. Indicate how the 
nature of the EDRs currently being installed in motor vehicles affects 
your answers to the questions in this notice. To the extent that future 
EDR technologies are foreseeable, how would the implementation of those 
technologies affect your answers?

c. Privacy Issues

    The recording of information by EDRs raises a number of privacy 
issues.\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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 privacy and related 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.

[[Page 63496]]

    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, or the circumstances under which other persons may 
obtain and use that information. These areas are covered by a variety 
of Federal and State laws not administered by NHTSA.
    In our own use of information from EDRs, we are careful to protect 
privacy. As part of our crash investigations, including those with 
EDRs, we often obtain personal information. In handling this 
information, we are careful to comply with applicable provisions of the 
Privacy Act of 1974 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.
    We invite comments on the general topic of privacy as it relates to 
EDRs.
    (16) Privacy. What organizations are analyzing privacy issues in 
the context of roadways, vehicles, and vehicle owners? Are any 
additional types of analyses needed? Are privacy concerns adequately 
met by the current Federal and State law and practices relating to the 
collection and use of the information recorded by EDRs? Are there 
significant differences in privacy and/or liability law among states, 
in the circumstances under which persons or institutions other than 
vehicle owners may obtain that information, and the purposes for which 
those other persons or institutions may use that information? In what 
circumstances are police officers and crash investigators (from 
government agencies or the private sector) allowed to access EDR data? 
What damages may result from inappropriate access to EDR data? What 
roles do technical solutions, such as data partitioning, encryption, 
and secure databases/vaults, play in addressing privacy concerns?

d. Role of NHTSA

    (17) Role of NHTSA. Over the past several years, NHTSA has been 
actively involved with EDRs, through the two working groups discussed 
above, as part of its crash investigations, and in research and 
development. Particularly since one working group has completed its 
work and the other is nearing completion, we request comments on what 
future role the agency should take related to the continued development 
and implementation of EDRs in motor vehicles.

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    NHTSA has considered the potential impacts of this request for 
comments 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.
    This document seeks comment on what future role the agency should 
take related to the continued development and implementation of EDRs in 
motor vehicles. The agency could take a variety of nonregulatory and/or 
regulatory actions.
    This document does not contain any regulatory actions. Further, 
this agency has not identified any regulatory actions sufficiently 
likely to warrant calculation of possible benefits and costs. The EDRs 
currently installed in motor vehicles cost very little as they take 
advantage of the existing sensors, processor and memory that the 
vehicles have. We estimate that an EDR that records basic air bag 
related data such as air bag deployment, deployment timing, and seat 
belt status, with moderate survivability, typically costs five dollars 
or less. We believe that a substantial percentage of light vehicles are 
already being equipped with such an EDR. However, EDRs with additional 
sensors, processing capability and memory, and greater survivability 
capabilities, could cost more.
    Given the costs associated with various EDRs, and the fact that 17 
million light vehicles are produced each year, a rulemaking proposal 
for EDRs could, but would not necessarily, have cost impacts that 
exceed $100 million annually. If NHTSA were to initiate rulemaking and 
develop a rulemaking proposal, the agency would calculate the costs and 
benefits associated with the specific proposal and place its analysis 
in the docket for that proposal. The agency would also conduct the 
various other rulemaking analyses required by applicable statutes and 
Executive Orders.

IV. Submission of Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments in response to 
this request for comments. For easy reference, the agency has 
consecutively numbered its questions. We request that commenters 
respond to each question by these numbers and provide all relevant 
factual information of which they are aware to support their conclusion 
or opinions, including but not limited to statistical data and 
estimated cost and benefits, and the source of such information.
    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed 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). 
We 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 
ADDRESS.

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

[[Page 63497]]

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 ADDRESS. 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 our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We 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, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date.

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 9 a.m. 
to 5 p.m., Monday to Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    [sbull] Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov).
    [sbull] On that page, click on ``search.''
    [sbull] On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
five-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-2001-12345,'' you would type 
``12345.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    [sbull] On the next page, which contains docket summary information 
for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued: October 8, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 02-26006 Filed 10-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P