[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 227 (Friday, November 28, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54619-54633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-21506]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 563 and 585
[Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0050]
RIN 2127-AM78
Event Data Recorders
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); response to petitions for
reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA published a final rule on December 18, 2024, in response
to a mandate of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST
Act) to establish the appropriate recording period in NHTSA's Event
Data Recorder (EDR) regulation (49 CFR part 563). The final rule
amended the pre-crash data capture requirements of EDRs by increasing
the recording duration and sample rate from 5 seconds at 2 Hz to 20
seconds at 10 Hz. The agency received three petitions for
reconsideration from the Alliance of Automotive Innovation, the EDR
Committee of SAE International, and FCA US LLC (a subsidiary of
Stellantis N.V.) in response to the final rule. NHTSA is proposing to
delay the compliance date from September 1, 2027, to September 1, 2028,
and implement a phase-in period for EDRs to meet the new requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received by December 29, 2025. In compliance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking comment on a
reinstatement with modification to a previously approved information
collection. For additional information, see the Paperwork Reduction Act
section under the Rulemaking Analyses and Notices section below. All
comments relating to the information collection requirements should be
submitted to NHTSA and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at
the address listed in the ADDRESSES section on or before December 29,
2025.
Proposed Compliance Dates: NHTSA proposes delaying the compliance
date and adopting a 4-year phase-in period to comply with the
requirements in 49 CFR part 563 as amended by the final rule published
on December 18, 2024, final rule, ``Event Data Recorders.'' The
proposal would require that 25 percent of a manufacturer's applicable
vehicles produced from September 1, 2028, to August 31, 2029, comply
with Part 563, followed by 50 percent from September 1, 2029, to August
31, 2030, 75 percent from September 1, 2030, to August 31, 2031, and
100 percent on and after September 1, 2031. NHTSA also proposes that
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages or that are altered are not
required to comply with the rule until on or after September 1, 2031.
Small-volume and limited-line manufacturers would be required to comply
beginning on September 1, 2032. The proposal would permit voluntary
early compliance.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call 202-366-
9332 before coming.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the
docket number of this document.
Comments on the proposed information collection requirements should
be submitted to: Office of Management and Budget at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. To find this particular information collection,
select ``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comment'' or use the
search function. It is requested that comments sent to the OMB also be
sent to the NHTSA rulemaking docket identified in the heading of this
document.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, or the street address
listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.
Confidential Business Information: If you claim that any of the
information in your comment (including any additional documents or
attachments) constitutes confidential business information within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) or is protected from disclosure pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1905, please see the detailed instructions given under the
Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section
of this document.
Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under the
Regulatory Analyses section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Joshua McNeil, Office of Crashworthiness Standards
([email protected]). For legal issues, you may contact Eli Wachtel,
Office of the Chief Counsel ([email protected]). You can reach these
officials by phone at 202-366-1810. Address: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Event Data Recorders and Part 563
B. Rulemaking Actions
III. Summary of Petitions for Reconsideration
IV. Discussion and Analysis
A. Lead Time and Phase-In Schedule
B. Cost Estimates
C. Basis for December 2024 Final Rule and Benefits
D. Industry Standards
E. CDR Development
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Executive Summary
In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA responds to
petitions for reconsideration of a final rule published December 18,
2024, that amended the data capture requirements
[[Page 54620]]
of event data recorders (EDRs) to specify a 20-second recording
duration and a 10 Hz sample rate.\1\ The primary purpose of an EDR is
to record technical information for a brief period before, during, and
after a collision, aiding in post-crash analysis and reconstruction.
The data recorded by the EDR provides a snapshot of the vehicle
dynamics that can aid crash investigators in assessing the performance
of specific safety equipment, including air bag deployment strategies,
air bag operation, and event severity. This information can also help
NHTSA and others identify potential opportunities for safety
improvements in current and future vehicles and implement more
effective safety regulations. Manufacturers are not required to install
EDRs in their vehicles. However, EDRs that are voluntarily installed
must meet the requirements NHTSA has established in 49 CFR part 563
(Part 563).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 89 FR 102810 (December 18, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA received three petitions for reconsideration of the December
2024 final rule from the Alliance of Automotive Innovation (Auto
Innovators),\2\ the EDR Committee of SAE International (SAE),\3\ and
FCA U.S. LLC (FCA), a subsidiary of Stellantis N.V.\4\ NHTSA is
granting the petitions for reconsideration in part and proposing to
adopt the compliance timeline requested by both SAE and Auto Innovators
in their respective petitions. This modified timeline would provide
manufacturers with an extended lead time and a phase-in to allow them
to integrate the necessary EDR and Airbag Control Module (ACM) \5\
architecture changes within their current model development cycles
without disrupting existing product plans. The agency's proposal
balances the need for enhanced crash data, as mandated by the FAST Act,
with practical industry constraints to ensure these safety advancements
can be implemented effectively across the entire vehicle fleet.
However, NHTSA is not proposing to adjust the recording duration and
sample rate requirements for EDRs as finalized in the December 2024
final rule. These technical specifications represent enhancements to
vehicle crash data collection capabilities that will support more
comprehensive crash investigations. NHTSA is deferring a final decision
on reconsideration until after review of comments received in response
to this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NHTSA-2024-0084-0005.
\3\ NHTSA-2024-0084-0004.
\4\ NHTSA-2024-0084-0003.
\5\ Manufacturers have different names for this module including
the Airbag Control Unit (ACU), Sensing Diagnostic Module (SDM),
Restraints Control Module (RCM), Powertrain Control Module (PCM),
Supplemental Restraint System (SRS), and the like. In this document,
ACU and ACM may be used interchangeably as both terms were presented
in the petitions for reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is proposing to extend the lead time for initial compliance
with the requirements of the December 18, 2024, rule by one year from
September 1, 2027, to September 1, 2028. In addition, NHTSA proposes
adding a phase-in period that would require 25 percent of a
manufacturer's fleet equipped with EDRs to be compliant with the
requirements of the final rule beginning in the first year of
compliance, and an additional 25 percent each year after that, until
the fleet is fully compliant in the fourth year. This matches the lead
time and phase-in period suggested in the petitions received from Auto
Innovators and SAE. We seek comment on all aspects of this proposal.
II. Background
A. Event Data Recorders and Part 563
NHTSA established Part 563 on August 28, 2006, setting forth
requirements for the accuracy, collection, storage, survivability, and
retrievability of data in vehicles equipped with EDRs. NHTSA does not
mandate EDRs on vehicles, but, if vehicles are equipped with EDRs, the
EDRs must meet specific data capture requirements as outlined in Tables
I-III of Part 563. Table I lists 15 data elements all EDRs subject to
Part 563 are required to record, along with the recording interval
(duration) and data sample rate. Table II lists optional data elements
that EDRs are not required to capture, but if recorded, are subject to
the recording interval (duration) and sample rate for each listed data
element in Table II.\6\ All data elements in Tables I and II must be
reported according to the range, accuracy, and resolution in Table III
of Part 563. Since Part 563 became fully effective on September 1,
2012, the adoption of EDRs has been nearly universal. NHTSA's internal
analysis estimates 99.5 percent of model year 2021 passenger cars and
other vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,855
kilograms (kg) (8,500 pounds) or less are equipped with EDRs that
comply with Part 563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Two data elements in Table II are listed as ``if equipped,''
meaning if a vehicle has the specified equipment, the specified
information must be recorded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDRs are often integrated into a vehicle's ACM, the electronic
system used to determine the deployment timing for air bags. EDRs
record data related to restraints and deployment internal to the ACM,
often at or just after a triggering event, referred to as crash data.
EDRs also record data from other existing vehicle sensors such as wheel
speed or accelerator pedal position that is transferred from the
vehicle's other onboard computers (electronic control units or ECUs) to
the ACM via controller area network (CAN) or similar communication. The
EDR temporarily stores this pre-crash data in a buffer. When a
triggering event occurs, pre-crash and crash data are stored in non-
volatile memory, so it survives even if the vehicle battery is damaged
or disconnected in the crash. This data can include vehicle speed,
throttle position, brake application, steering angle, seatbelt use, and
air bag deployment timing. If a vehicle is equipped with an EDR, it
must contain at a minimum the data outlined in Table I of Part 563, but
manufacturers can add additional data elements at their discretion. The
required pre-crash data elements in Table I include: (1) speed, vehicle
indicated; (2) engine throttle, percent full (or accelerator pedal,
percent full); and (3) service brake, on/off. The storage size of this
data is considered small, often just kilobytes, because the EDR only
stores a short interval of data around the time of a triggering event.
B. Rulemaking Actions
On June 22, 2022, pursuant to section 24303 of the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public Law 114-94 (December 4,
2015), NHTSA issued an NPRM to amend Part 563.\7\ The NPRM relied on
the findings of an EDR Duration Study \8\ required by the FAST Act and
information gathered from NHTSA's defects investigation experience
which indicated that EDR data can be used to assess whether a vehicle
operated properly at the time of an event, or to help detect
undesirable operations. The June 2022 NPRM proposed extending the
recording interval and data sample rate of pre-crash data elements
under Part 563 from 5 seconds at 2 Hz to 20 seconds at 10 Hz (i.e., an
increase from 2 samples per second to 10 samples per second).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 87 FR 37289 (June 22, 2022).
\8\ Event Data Recorder Duration Study [Appendix to a Report to
Congress. Report No. DOT HS 813 082B], 2022, https://doi.org/10.21949/1530244.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA explained in the June 2022 NPRM that extending the recording
duration from 5 to 20 seconds would help capture critical data on the
initiation of pre-crash actions and maneuvers for most crashes. The
June 2022 NPRM acknowledged the proposed changes could result in
additional costs, as more memory would be required to store the
increased amount of pre-crash data. However, the agency explained the
[[Page 54621]]
additional memory could be incorporated into the existing or planned
memory design in vehicles, based on the relatively small amount of
memory necessary to record the pre-crash data for 20 seconds at 10
Hz.\9\ NHTSA proposed an effective date of the first September 1 one
year after the publication of the final rule, noting that a one-year
lead time was appropriate because increasing the required pre-crash
data would not require any additional hardware or a substantial
redesign of either the EDR or the vehicle and would likely require only
minimal software changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NHTSA estimated that an increase in pre-crash recording
duration from 5 seconds to 20 seconds with an increase in recording
frequency from 2 Hz to 10 Hz would require 1.33 Kb of additional
memory for one event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing comments submitted in response to the June 2022
NPRM, NHTSA published a final rule on December 18, 2024, that increased
the pre-crash recording duration and sample rate requirements of the
seven pre-crash data elements in Part 563 from 5 seconds to 20 seconds,
as proposed.\10\ Per the statutory mandate of the FAST Act, the
December 2024 final rule aimed to establish the appropriate period for
EDRs to capture and record vehicle-related data to provide sufficient
information to investigate the cause of motor vehicle crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Three data elements are included in Table I of part 563 as
mandatory elements to be recorded if an EDR is equipped. Four data
elements are included in Table II of part 563 as having to meet
certain requirements if they are recorded by the EDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA explained in the December 2024 final rule that the increased
recording duration will provide more details on actions taken prior to
crashes. Specifically, vehicle actions such as running a stop sign or
red light could be captured in full and included in crash
reconstruction when supplemented with roadway and traffic control
information. The increased recording duration could also help capture
any corrective maneuvers taken by a vehicle prior to an initial road
departure or braking and acceleration actions taken in the approach
stage before traversing large intersections. NHTSA explained that the
increased sample rate will help clarify the interpretation of pre-crash
data, including braking and steering actions taken by the vehicle,
especially in situations where an action occurs just prior to impact
(between 0.5 seconds prior to impact and the time of impact). The
agency also noted that this could both help reduce potential
uncertainty related to the relative timing of recorded data elements
and assist with the identification of potential pedal misapplication.
The compliance date set by NHTSA for the December 2024 final rule was
September 1, 2027, for vehicles equipped with an EDR. Small-volume or
limited-line manufacturers were given until September 1, 2029, to
comply, and altered or multi-stage manufacturers were given until
September 1, 2030, to comply.
III. Summary of Petitions for Reconsideration
NHTSA regulations allow any interested person to petition the
Administrator for reconsideration of a rule. Under NHTSA's regulations,
petitions for reconsideration must provide an explanation why
compliance with the rule is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not
in the public interest. In addition, petitions must be received within
45 days of the publication of the final rule. The Administrator may
consolidate petitions relating to the same rule. The Administrator may
issue a final decision on reconsideration without further proceedings
or may provide opportunity for comment.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 49 CFR 553.35, 553.37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency received three petitions for reconsideration in response
to the December 2024 final rule from Auto Innovators, SAE, and FCA.\12\
In its petition, Auto Innovators stated that the changes to the pre-
crash recording period and sample rate lack sufficient evidence of
safety benefits and impose significant implementation burdens. The
petition from Auto Innovators raised three main concerns. First, the
petition stated that NHTSA's reliance on the EDR Duration Study in the
December 2024 final rule without fully addressing comments to the June
2022 NPRM was inadequate.\13\ Second, the petition claimed that the
two-year lead time in the final rule (compliance date of September 1,
2027) underestimated the complexity of changing the hardware and
software for EDRs. The petition disputed NHTSA's claim that many EDRs
can meet the new requirements with minor changes, citing needs for
increased memory, energy, and redesigned components, which could strain
supply chains and vehicle production cycles. Third, Auto Innovators
stated that NHTSA's analysis in the December 2024 final rule
oversimplified the costs of compliance by focusing on component-level
upgrades (e.g., capacitors, memory) and did not adequately consider
broader redesign, validation, and recertification expenses for existing
and late-stage development vehicles. The petition stated that capacitor
size estimates differed by a factor of approximately 1,000 and that any
changes to the number of capacitors could impact the vehicle
architecture or onboard computers. Regarding crash data retrieval (CDR)
tools, Part 563 mandates that manufacturers ensure commercially
available tools for EDR data access and retrieval within 90 days of a
vehicle's first sale if the vehicle is equipped with an EDR. 49 CFR
563.12. Auto Innovators highlighted the unaddressed cost, complexity,
and lead time for updating CDR tools for all manufacturers within the
90-day window, especially without a phase-in period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ NHTSA-2024-0084-0005 (Auto Innovators), NHTSA-2024-0084-
0004 (SAE), and NHTSA-2024-0084-0003 (FCA).
\13\ Auto Innovators and SAE in response to the June 2022 NPRM
critiqued aspects of the EDR Duration Study, including the model
year of the vehicles, the small set of data elements, and the basis
for concluding that 20 seconds of pre-crash data enhances crash
analysis beyond the previous requirement of 5 seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auto Innovators sought a revised rule that balances safety goals
with practical implementation to maintain the current level of EDR
implementation. The petitioner suggested a three-year lead time with a
four-year phase-in (25/50/75/100 percent). NHTSA understands this
suggestion to mean the first September 1 that is three years from the
publication of the December 2024 final rule. Auto Innovators requested
that NHTSA reassess the feasibility and benefits of the December 2024
final rule and conduct a more thorough cost-benefit analysis with
industry input. It also urged alignment with international
standards.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ UN ECE No. 160 maintains the 5 seconds/2 Hz minimum
requirements for pre-crash recorded data elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAE stated that the December 2024 final rule is impractical,
unreasonable, and not in the public interest. SAE noted that it
advocates for the use of EDRs as tools for crash reconstruction, not
driver behavior monitoring devices, and stated that the prior
requirements (5 seconds at 2 Hz) are sufficient. SAE stated that 20
seconds of pre-crash data captures speculative actions unrelated to
crash causation, posing risks of privacy violations and misleading
reconstructions without crash-site evidence. SAE disputed NHTSA's
reliance on the EDR Duration Study, asserting that no evidence supports
the benefit of longer data capture durations. Regarding CDR tools,
while most manufacturers use Bosch CDR products,\15\ SAE stated that
due to the
[[Page 54622]]
complicated connection and interface requirements for each
manufacturer, Bosch would have to develop new software and possibly all
new interfaces and software to read EDR data. SAE asserted this
development process will be further complicated by longer imaging times
for each device due to the increased amount of EDR data.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In comments on the June 2022 NPRM, Bosch suggested
exempting older, soon-to-be discontinued models from the amendments,
arguing that capturing new vehicle technologies is more beneficial
than extending recording duration. While supporting a sample rate
increase to 10 Hz for better capture events such as braking,
steering, and lane change maneuvers, Bosch noted that even this
change alone would require software and hardware modifications.
\16\ SAE notes there are currently 22 manufacturers and 55
brands supported worldwide by the tool, and these changes would
require a substantial workload. SAE mentions that other EDR data
collection tool suppliers (e.g., GIT) would be negatively impacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAE also stated that a two-year timeline is inadequate and would
require manufacturers to implement extensive hardware and software
updates and perform rigorous testing and validation, and could prompt
manufacturers to disable EDRs, thus undermining safety goals. SAE
recommended retaining the previous recording requirements or adopting a
phase-in and hosting a workshop to assess manufacturer needs if the new
recording requirements are maintained. SAE also questioned NHTSA's cost
justification process under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
guidelines, requesting related documentation and cited the cost
estimates provided by Auto Innovators in response to the June 2022
NPRM.\17\ SAE recommended that NHTSA reconsider the final rule, citing
minimal societal benefit, privacy risks, and industry burdens. SAE also
requested a three-year lead time with a four-year phase-in (25/50/75/
100 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Auto Innovators estimated the cost burden for the initial
year would be $231.36 million. That estimate is $8.4 million per
manufacturer (for 17 manufacturers) for development and testing plus
the incremental EDR module cost ($5.40) times the number of vehicles
fitted in that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCA's petition stated that it supports the goal of extending the
EDR capture and recording period but that the two-year lead time is
impractical to implement. FCA explained that the design changes
necessary to update their EDRs do not align with existing product
plans, necessitating costly, expedited investments. FCA asserted that a
more gradual timeline would reduce costs significantly, potentially to
zero, by aligning with standard industry product lifecycles. FCA
suggested a 4-year phase-in as follows: September 1, 2027: 25 percent
compliance; September 1, 2028: 50 percent compliance; September 1,
2029: 75 percent compliance; September 1, 2030: 100 percent compliance.
FCA stated that this timeline would allow current vehicle models to be
phased out under existing rules while new models adopt the updated
standards, enabling cost-effective validation through crash tests. FCA
stated that removing EDR functionality due to timeline pressures would
not align with its safety and transparency goals as it remains
committed to maintaining EDR technology. FCA emphasized that EDRs aid
post-crash analysis rather than directly saving lives.
IV. Discussion and Analysis
NHTSA is proposing to grant the petitions in part by extending the
lead time and implementing a phase-in schedule to align the changes
made to EDRs more closely with the production life cycles of vehicles.
The added lead time and phase-in period aims to ease the financial
burden associated with the testing and development stages necessary to
validate the EDR functions as intended and not compromise performance
of the air bag deployment systems. The three petitions expressed
concerns with the following general areas of the final rule: lead time,
costs and benefits, estimate of hardware and software changes, basis
for recording duration, industry standards, and CDR development. The
sections below examine each topic in turn, discussing the petitions and
explaining the agency's response.
A. Lead Time and Phase-In Schedule
Lead Time
Auto Innovators, SAE, and FCA stated that the final rule's
compliance date (September 1, 2027) is impractical, forcing a redesign
of current EDRs and electrical systems across all vehicle models. They
recommended a phase-in schedule: Auto Innovators and SAE suggested an
additional year of lead time (a total of three years of lead time)
followed by a four-year phase-in (25/50/75/100 percent), while FCA
suggested a four-year phase-in (25/50/75/100 percent) starting from the
rule's compliance date (a total of two years of lead time).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The final rule required all vehicles equipped with an EDR
to meet the new requirements beginning two years following the first
September 1 after publication. Because the final rule was published
in December 2024 the compliance date was set as September 1, 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has tentatively determined that the implementation timeline
for the December 2024 final rule may create unnecessary redesign and
validation costs, especially with regards to late-stage design and in-
market vehicles, and may risk some such vehicles no longer being
equipped with EDRs. Therefore, the agency is proposing to amend Part
563 by extending the lead time by one year and adding the phase-in
period suggested by Auto Innovators and SAE in their petitions for
reconsideration. This option is being proposed in part because, based
on the cost estimates below, the extra year of lead time compared to
the schedule suggested by FCA would reduce costs further. This option
is also being proposed to lower the risk that NHTSA and a wide range of
stakeholders could lose access to valuable EDR data. Since Part 563 is
an ``if equipped'' standard, manufacturers retain discretion over
whether to install EDRs in vehicles, provided any EDRs that are
installed on light vehicles required to have frontal air bags comply
with the regulation's requirements. If some manufacturers determine
that costs or technical issues involved in bringing certain models into
compliance with the requirements in the December 2024 final rule
outweigh the benefits of including EDRs, they may discontinue EDR
installation.
NHTSA's December 2024 final rule set an effective date of September
1, 2027. The approximately two years and eight months provided more
implementation flexibility than the June 2022 NPRM's proposed one-year
lead time. This decision was partially based on manufacturer feedback
suggesting some EDRs already had the memory, energy, and processing
power for capturing 20 seconds of pre-crash data at 10 Hz. NHTSA did
acknowledge that even EDRs with the capability to record 20 seconds of
pre-crash data would require testing and validation to ensure
compliance and to prevent interference with air bag timing. However,
NHTSA admitted that it lacked the data to estimate how many EDRs in the
current vehicle fleet possess the necessary hardware for the new
requirements, given adequate time for software changes and system
validation.
The agency acknowledges that manufacturers may have insufficient
time to adopt in full the new requirements which could force limiting
some of their EDR functionality. As highlighted in the petitions, the
development cycle and installation of EDRs can span three to four
years, and manufacturers may have already finalized EDRs for model
years 2026 through 2030, making immediate changes costly.
Therefore, to lower the risk that NHTSA and a wide range of
stakeholders could lose access to valuable EDR data due to burdensome
cost and redesign constraints imposed
[[Page 54623]]
by the December 2024 final rule's original timeline, NHTSA proposes to
extend the lead time and add a phase-in schedule for vehicles equipped
with EDRs to meet the pre-crash recording requirements. The agency did
not intend for manufacturers to remove EDR functionality and did not
suggest manufacturers remove EDRs to meet the requirements in the
December 2024 final rule. NHTSA anticipates that a phase-in schedule
would allow manufacturers to implement the necessary EDR and ACM
architecture changes in existing model development cycles. This
approach also ensures the agency's continued collection of valuable
data from vehicles with EDRs that do not yet meet the new requirements.
The phase-in schedule, excluding small volume and multi-stage
manufacturers, would be as follows for vehicles equipped with EDRs:
25 percent of the vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2028, and before September 1, 2029.
50 percent of the vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2029, and before September 1, 2030.
75 percent of the vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2030, and before September 1, 2031.
100 percent of the vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2031.
Small-volume manufacturers and multi-stage manufacturers would not
be subject to the phase-in. Small-volume manufacturers would have an
additional year to comply, and multi-stage manufacturers and alterers
would have two additional years. As proposed, the requirements would
apply beginning September 1, 2032, to small-volume manufacturers or
limited-line manufacturers and September 1, 2033, for vehicles
manufactured by manufacturers producing altered vehicles or vehicles in
two or more stages.
Cost Savings Associated With This Proposed Rule
In developing this response to the petitions, NHTSA analyzed
potential cost savings from different lead time extensions and phase-in
schedules. Table 1 summarizes societal cost saving based on a three-
year phase-in with a one-year lead time extension. The proposed lead
time and phase-in (one-year extension followed by 25/50/75/100 percent
phase-in) means the first model year (MY) impacted by the final rule
would apply to consumers purchasing new MY2029 vehicles. The phase-in
would begin on September 1, 2028, with 25 percent compliance of
vehicles between September 1, 2028, and August 31, 2029, increasing to
50 percent and 75 percent in the following years, and 100 percent after
August 31, 2031. This phase-in is projected to save $9.95 to $25.14
million in 2028, $6.63 to $16.76 million in 2029, and $3.32 to $8.38
million in 2030. The lead time extension itself is projected to save an
additional $13.26 to $33.52 million in 2027, resulting in total
quantified savings of $33.15 to $83.80 million from 2027 to 2030. When
discounting at three percent, the cost savings is approximately $29.77
million to $75.23 million. When discounting at seven percent, the cost
savings is approximately $25.95 million to $65.57 million.
In comments to the June 2022 NPRM and the petitions addressed in
this document, manufacturers documented significant implementation
costs associated with the mandatory updates to EDRs across their
vehicle fleets. The estimates from Auto Innovators indicated that mid-
cycle engineering modifications would require an estimated $231.36
million in redesign expenditures in the first year followed by $88.56
in subsequent years. The additional lead time and phase-in schedule
would enable manufacturers to integrate compliant EDRs into their
standard development timelines, eliminating the need for costly
expedited engineering solutions. NHTSA's conservative estimate of
$33.15 million to $83.80 million in quantified savings represents only
the direct costs avoided through this approach to extend the lead time
and offer a phase-in. The agency does not have the information to
estimate the additional cost savings from manufacturers not having to
make substantial design changes to vehicle models in the middle of
their production cycle. Manufacturers may find further unquantifiable
savings through flexibility and technological advancements, allowing
them to phase out older EDRs lacking the necessary capabilities to
record for 20 seconds at 10 Hz without requiring extensive
modifications. For example, NHTSA anticipates that emerging storage
technologies could replace Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only
Memory (EEPROM), currently a common method for recording EDR data.
These newer technologies would allow data to be written to non-volatile
memory more quickly than EEPROM, potentially reducing the reserve power
needed if the vehicle battery fails during the data recording process.
If manufacturers determine that alternatives like flash memory or
ferroelectric random-access memory (FRAM) are suitable for EDRs and
cost-effective solutions, the implementation costs may decrease. In
addition, as technology advances, manufacturers can expect either
reduced prices for existing memory components or increased storage
capacity at comparable price points, without significantly increasing
the physical size of EDR modules.
Table 1--Summary of Cost Savings by Model Year 3-Year Phase-In and 1-Year Extension
[Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental cost Estimated cost savings to society
Phase in --------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year schedule Supplemental
(%) FRE analysis Quantified Unquantified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2028.......................... 0 $13.26-$33.52 $0 $13.26-$33.52 Potential
reduction in
cost due to
increased
flexibility,
developments in
technology, and
learning.
2029.......................... 25 13.26-33.52 3.32-8.38 9.95-25.14
2030.......................... 50 13.26-33.52 6.63-16.76 6.63-16.76
2031.......................... 75 13.26-33.52 9.95-25.14 3.32-8.38
2032+......................... 100 13.26-33.52 13.26-33.52 0 ................
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost Savings........ ........... ............... ............... 33.15-83.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values may not sum due to rounding.
[[Page 54624]]
B. Cost Estimates
The petitioners raised several issues with the cost analysis in the
December 2024 final rule. Broadly, petitioners raised issues with the
component hardware and software cost estimates NHTSA used, such as an
inadequate estimate of the changes to the amount of memory and reserve
power that would be needed, the costs associated with additional
validation and testing needed to meet the new requirements, and the
component estimates in the final regulatory evaluation (FRE) \19\
supplementing the December 2024 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ NHTSA-2024-0084-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is not adjusting its cost estimates with regard to hardware
and software changes in response to the petitions. It is not clear from
the Auto Innovators' petition what aspect of the December 2024 final
rule petitioners are requesting be amended if such a change in cost
estimates is made. Nonetheless, the agency previously underestimated
the amount of time some manufacturers would need to design, test, and
validate EDRs after implementing hardware and software changes. The
proposed additional lead time and phase-in period should alleviate the
financial burden associated with manufacturers having to upgrade EDRs
across their models. It may also allow manufacturers to increase the
amount of non-volatile memory and RAM, if needed, and validate the
correct transfer rates and frequencies of the required data (Table I
elements). It would also allow manufacturers to assess whether more
reserve energy is necessary to write the increased amount of data
within the EDR or additional reserve energy sources for maintaining
power for other vehicle systems after a triggering event. Furthermore,
this proposed extended period may facilitate the testing and
development of newer, faster data processing and writing technologies,
potentially reducing the reserve energy needed for reliable data
capture.
Regarding the component hardware itself, NHTSA estimated in the
June 2022 NPRM and December 2024 final rule that the amount of memory
required to meet the new requirements would increase from 0.90 kB to
2.26 kB per event, not accounting for necessary memory buffers. While
the June 2022 NPRM initially anticipated near-zero costs based solely
on memory upgrades, the December 2024 final rule's analysis was updated
to account for EDRs lacking sufficient hardware to accommodate the
increased data. This revised cost analysis included incremental
expenses for upgrading all hardware components necessary for buffering
and writing the data to non-volatile memory. Feedback indicated many
manufacturers use flash memory (standalone or in microcontrollers) with
capacities up to 96 kB to capture EDR data. A few manufacturers are
recording pre-crash data at 10 Hz (but not for 20 seconds) while many
already capture pre-crash data elements not listed as required data
elements to capture in Table I of Part 563. Based on the estimated data
increase of 1.33 kB per event, NHTSA continues to believe manufacturers
either have sufficient memory in a subset of their EDRs or can develop
EDRs with more memory, if needed, to capture 20 seconds of data given
enough time to test and develop EDRs.
Based on the amount of data to be recorded with the extended
duration and the current amount of memory available in EDRs (32 Kb to
96 Kb), NHTSA did not anticipate a need for more reserve power in the
December 2024 final rule and has not received information to change
this assumption in the NPRM. Another study on EDRs published by NHTSA
(referred to as the EDR Technologies Study in the NPRM and 2024 Final
Rule) \20\ showed a decade-long trend of manufacturers moving from
EEPROM to flash memory, which should reduce the amount of time
necessary to write the data and consequently the reserve energy needed
to complete the writing process. Manufacturers had indicated to NHTSA
that some EDR modules already possess the hardware capabilities (in
terms of memory, power, and controller specifications) to meet the new
requirements. Therefore, NHTSA is not adjusting its cost estimates for
hardware and software changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ DOT HS 812 929.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is not altering the component-level costs presented in the
FRE supplementing the December 2024 final rule. The agency provided a
cost range ($13.26 million to $33.52 million annually) based on the
hardware specification of two EDR platforms to meet the new Part 563
requirements, which were components selected to meet the AEC-Q200
standard. NHTSA is addressing an error in the analysis, however, that
the FRE should have used ``mF'' (millifarad) instead of ``[mu]F''
(microfarad) as the standard unit of capacitors. The agency's cost
estimates have therefore been revised to include upgrading from a 3.3-
mF capacitor to a 6.8-mF capacitor. The average unit prices, after a 70
percent discount, were $0.24 for 3.3-mF capacitors (based on 24 quotes)
and $0.26 for 6.8-mF capacitors (based on 13 quotes), resulting in a
$0.02 difference, consistent with the component-level upgrade cost
presented in the FRE.
C. Basis for December 2024 Final Rule and Benefits
The petitions from Auto Innovators and SAE critiqued the EDR
Duration Study that NHTSA used to justify extending the recording
duration and criticized NHTSA discussion in the June 2022 NPRM and
December 2024 final rule of the benefits of the increased amount of EDR
pre-crash data.\21\ Auto Innovators requested that NHTSA reconsider the
EDR duration and frequency specifications and examine the possibility
that similar safety benefits can be attained through less burdensome
requirements. SAE requested that NHTSA retain the prior 5-second
duration and 2-Hz recording frequency for pre-crash data elements or
adopt a phase-in schedule for manufacturers to meet the new EDR
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Auto Innovators and SAE offered similar comments in
response to the June 2022 NPRM (87 FR 37289).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is not proposing to amend these aspects of Part 563. Auto
Innovators claims NHTSA has not demonstrated the potential safety
benefits of the extended recording duration. However, Congress mandated
NHTSA conduct a study to determine an appropriate recording duration
for providing sufficient information to investigate the cause of motor
vehicle crashes. Following the submission of this study's findings, the
FAST Act required NHTSA to issue a final rule. The June 2022 NPRM and
December 2024 Final Rule extensively detail the benefits of increasing
the recording duration.
The fundamental purpose of Part 563 is to ensure EDRs record data
``valuable for effective crash investigations and for analysis of
safety equipment performance.'' The EDR Duration Study's findings
clearly indicate that the current 5-second pre-crash recording duration
under Part 563 fails to capture the initiation of pre-crash braking and
steering maneuvers in a significant number of cases. The study showed
that extending the pre-crash recording duration would capture a greater
amount of information regarding a vehicle's actions leading up to a
triggering event, thereby increasing the value of EDR data for crash
investigations. Based on these findings, a 20-second recording duration
is necessary to ensure that the initiation of
[[Page 54625]]
pre-crash actions and crash avoidance maneuvers are captured for the
majority of crashes. This recording duration will increase the utility
of the recorded information, potentially leading to further
advancements in the safety of both current and future vehicles.
Furthermore, the study concluded that a more comprehensive
understanding of pre-crash actions will aid in the evaluation of crash
avoidance systems (such as lane departure warning, lane keeping assist,
forward collision avoidance, automatic emergency braking, and
intersection safety assistance systems), even if specific data from
these systems is not directly reported by the EDR.
The EDR Duration Study aimed to identify the necessary recording
duration for investigating crash causation. The study was not directed
to prove that increasing the recording duration of EDR data would
increase safety or to estimate the cost of design changes associated
with extending the recording duration. NHTSA believes the study
provides a robust basis for increasing the recording duration to 20
seconds based on the study's finding that a 5-second window often
misses significant pre-crash actions, particularly for road departure
and intersection crashes. The study showed that 5 seconds is
insufficient to capture crucial information, such as the initiation of
crash avoidance maneuvers like braking and steering, in a considerable
percentage of crashes where EDRs are triggered. For example, the study
demonstrated that approximately 35 percent of drivers that applied
brakes did so outside of the 5-second window prior to impact. The
actions of the vehicles captured beyond 5 seconds would assist
investigators with crash reconstruction. Moreover, the study indicated
that 20 seconds would encompass the 90th percentile of recording
duration needed for lane departure, intersection, and rear-end crashes.
NHTSA acknowledges the vehicles used in the study lacked modern
safety features that could have intervened within five seconds of the
crash event. However, current regulations do not mandate that EDRs
capture the status of active safety systems. While manufacturers may
voluntarily record data on modern safety features in their EDRs, it
could not be consistently included in the study. Consequently, the
current five-second recording duration of most EDRs inherently
restricts the ability to analyze crash causation beyond that timeframe.
The study used the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study (NDS) and
Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) NDS because they contained
data extending beyond five seconds, enabling researchers to analyze
vehicle actions in rear-end crashes, lane departures, and the approach
and traversal stages when passing through an intersection.
The EDR Duration Study was conducted in two phases. Phase one used
existing crash data from NHTSA's database to analyze how often the
five-second EDR recording duration failed to capture the start of
driver actions before crashes. This phase established that the five-
second requirement was inadequate and proved the need for longer
recording durations. Phase two used naturalistic driving study data to
examine the complete timeline of driver pre-crash actions (beyond five
seconds pre-crash). Researchers used this real-world driving behavior
data to determine what EDR recording duration would be needed to
capture when drivers first began taking pre-crash actions. Phase two of
the EDR Duration Study examined newer vehicles than the vehicles
examined in Phase one. Though active safety features are not required
to be recorded in EDRs, Phase two found that increased recording time
could allow for more voluntary recording of active safety systems. The
activation times for ABS in that data ranged from two to nine seconds
before a crash, further demonstrating the inadequacy of a five-second
recording duration to capture all relevant pre-crash vehicle dynamics.
Moreover, understanding vehicle dynamics and driver behavior that occur
before ABS activation is crucial for comprehensive crash causation
analysis. These earlier timeframes can contain the initial decision
points and driving patterns that precipitate the conditions leading to
ABS engagement. Without this extended timeline data, investigators
could miss critical information about steering and braking inputs,
early avoidance maneuvers, and progressive system interventions that
form the complete causal chain of events.
The EDR Duration Study referred to driver ``behavior'' and
``actions'' interchangeably. Literature has shown that crash causation
is often related to driver error, so understanding a driver's actions
pre-crash is crucial. Therefore, the study focused on the duration
needed to capture a driver's actions pre-crash in full, which is within
the scope of EDR data collection for effective crash investigation
purposes. Consequently, the Phase two objective was precisely to
determine a recording duration that enhances the certainty of capturing
the complete timeline of pre-crash actions.
NHTSA underscores that achieving the most accurate reconstruction
of events triggering EDR recording necessitates the continued
integration of all pertinent information alongside EDR data. When
analyzing data more likely to represent normal driving behavior and
less directly related to crash causation, the EDR Duration Study
specifically examined actions preceding the event, such as changes in
steady-state vehicle velocity and the earliest instances of braking. A
finding from Phase two of the study was that a 20-second pre-crash data
window would encompass the 90th percentile of the required recording
duration for the analyzed crash modes (lane departure, intersection,
and rear-end) and associated crash avoidance maneuvers.
NHTSA emphasizes that the 20-second extended recording duration
will be particularly beneficial in analyzing intersection crashes.
These crashes typically involve an approach stage as the vehicle nears
the intersection and a traversal stage in which the vehicle is exposed
in the intersection. Based on the EDR Duration Study, extending the
pre-crash recording duration to 20 seconds would capture approximately
90 percent of all intersection events and nearly all braking scenarios,
compared to less than one percent with the five-second recording
duration. The extended duration, combined with the increased sample
rate, would document the complete sequence of driver actions from
initial accelerator release (occurring up to 12 seconds pre-crash)
through brake application (up to 10 seconds pre-crash) to any evasive
maneuvers. With typical intersection events lasting 10-19 seconds
depending on the configuration, the longer duration would capture the
entire approach and traversal phases. This EDR data would reveal the
critical decision points across various intersection sizes and approach
types (e.g., complete stops, low-speed rolling stops, high-speed
rolling stops). Similarly, in road departure crashes, longer durations
could capture more complete information on gradual lane departures and
corrective steering or braking maneuvers initiated by the driver before
the initial departure from the roadway. This extended duration could
also prove valuable in analyzing events occurring on larger highways,
potentially capturing the actions of a vehicle as it approaches a stop
sign or a signaled intersection, even across multiple lanes.
Regarding privacy concerns, NHTSA reaffirms that EDRs do not record
personally identifiable information. The
[[Page 54626]]
data captured is routinely overwritten, preserving data only when
specific crash events meet the defined trigger threshold in Part 563.
Extending the pre-crash recording duration to 20 seconds is not
anticipated to heighten privacy concerns, as it involves no new or
significantly altered technology for collecting, storing, or
disseminating personally identifiable information. Moreover, the Driver
Privacy Act of 2015, enacted under the FAST Act after Part 563's
establishment, legally designates the vehicle owner or lessee as the
owner of EDR data. Retrieval of this recorded data is strictly limited
to purposes of enhancing motor vehicle safety and safety research
(provided the data remain non-personally identifiable), or with the
explicit consent of the vehicle owner or through a lawful court or
administrative order. These privacy protections should effectively
address expressed concerns while enabling the agency to fulfill the
FAST Act's mandate of establishing an appropriate recording period
within NHTSA's EDR regulation.
Auto Innovators and SAE stated that there will remain an ongoing
need to collect supplementary data like police reports and ADAS event
data for a more complete understanding of crash causation. NHTSA agrees
that supplemental information (e.g., police reports) remains crucial
for researchers, law enforcement, and reconstructionists to analyze
vehicle and crash dynamics. However, NHTSA clarifies that the FAST
Act's mandate specifically addressed pre-crash recording duration, not
the addition of ADAS event data to be captured by EDRs. In response to
SAE's caution against solely relying on EDR data, NHTSA emphasizes that
the December 2024 final rule did not suggest abandoning the
consideration of other critical factors in crash investigations.
Instead, the increased data, coupled with a higher sample rate, aims to
offer a more complete understanding of the pre-crash actions of the
vehicle and their interplay. NHTSA is not mandating the inclusion of
additional data elements beyond those listed in Part 563 at this time.
However, the extended lead time and phase-in period proposed in this
notice could present an opportunity for manufacturers to modernize the
EDRs being equipped in their vehicles if they so choose. This timeframe
may allow manufacturers the flexibility to develop and rigorously test
EDR systems capable of capturing crucial information related to crash
avoidance technologies and other ADAS like SAE Level 2 systems.\22\
This includes data that is already available within other existing ECUs
onboard the vehicle, but that may not currently be recorded by the EDR.
Notably, some manufacturers already equip vehicles with EDRs that
capture status for systems like adaptive cruise control, automatic
emergency braking, forward collision warning, and lane departure
warning, which are all data elements beyond the current Part 563
requirements. Manufacturers may voluntarily add data elements to be
recorded by their EDRs, provided these additions do not compromise the
EDR's ability to meet the minimum data capture requirements outlined in
Part 563. This modernization could significantly enhance the richness
and utility of EDR data for future safety research and analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ SAE Level 2 refers to features that provide steering and
brake/acceleration support to the driver. An example would be lane
centering and adaptive cruise control features functioning at the
same time while the driver constantly supervises the support
features to maintain safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, NHTSA is not proposing to amend the 20-second recording
duration and 10 Hz sample rate requirements for EDRs as finalized in
the December 2024 final rule.
D. Industry Standards
In its petition, SAE asked for more information on the process
associated with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No.
A-119 (Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary
Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities). SAE asked
whether NHTSA sent any documentation to OMB in justification of the
costs and the rationale per OMB's conformity assessment activities (per
OMB A-119).\23\ SAE requested the agency to identify and share such
documentation. Auto Innovators stated that NHTSA should have exercised
discretion when implementing the FAST Act requirement and instead
should have sought to align with established industry standards and
international regulatory requirements more closely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ In relevant part, OMB A-119 states, ``In those
circumstances where an agency elects to use or develop a government
unique standard in lieu of using a voluntary consensus standard,
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA requires the agency to submit a report
describing the reason(s) to OMB. Under the Circular, this report is
submitted to OMB through the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). For more information on reporting, see Sections
9-11 of this Circular.'' Section 9 of OMB A-119 states, ``At
minimum, your agency must have the ability to provide to OMB,
through NIST, (1) a report on the agency's use of government-unique
standards in lieu of voluntary consensus standards, along with an
explanation of the reasons for such 33 usages, as required by
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA and as described in Section 5c of this
Circular; and (2) a summary of your agency's activities undertaken
to carry out the provisions of this Circular.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA carefully considered the consensus standards applicable to
EDR data elements in establishing Part 563 and in amending Part 563 in
the December 2024 final rule.\24\ NHTSA declined to adopt the voluntary
consensus standards for the pre-crash recording because such a decision
would be inconsistent with the best available information to the agency
and conflict with the outcome of a study required by the FAST Act. The
factors the agency considered when implementing a conformity assessment
program are discussed in the preamble to the December 2024 final rule
with regards to the requirements of the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113). These factors
have not changed, and NHTSA declines to propose amending Part 563
pursuant to align with industry consensus standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ There are consensus standards related to EDRs, most notably
standards published by SAE (J1698--Event Data Recorder), Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (Standard 1616, IEEE
Standard for Motor Vehicle Event Data Recorder) and UN Regulation
No. 160 (which was followed by UN Regulation No. 160 Revision 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to material submitted pursuant to Circular A-119, the
Circular A-119 annual report does not typically include rulemaking and
decision information, such as costs. It identifies where NHTSA
regulations incorporate a government-unique standard in lieu of an
industry-developed voluntary consensus standard and explains the
reasons for such usage.
E. CDR Development
Part 563 mandates that manufacturers ensure commercially available
tools for EDR data access and retrieval within 90 days of a vehicle's
first sale if the vehicle is equipped with an EDR. 49 CFR 563.12. NHTSA
acknowledges the concerns raised by Auto Innovators, SAE, and Bosch
regarding EDR data accessibility. The additional lead time and phase-in
proposed here should enable producers of EDR data retrieval tools to
update, test, and validate their new products, including direct-to-
module cables, ensuring their capability to retrieve the EDR data
effectively.
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Orders 12866 and 14192
This proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. Therefore, the
Office of
[[Page 54627]]
Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this proposed rule under
that Executive Order.
Under E.O. 14192, a deregulatory action is an action that has been
finalized and has total costs less than zero. The rulemaking, if
finalized as proposed, would be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
The requirements specified in the final rule provide benefits
through the use of EDR data in crash defects investigations. However,
the FRE was not able to quantify those benefits. The FRE accounted for
the incremental costs associated with the final rule. Incremental costs
reflect the increase in total lifetime cost for end users as a result
of meeting the requirements specified in the final rule relative to
costs incurred under the baseline. Therefore, the incremental costs
reflected in the analysis are associated with upgrading currently
compliant EDRs to meet the requirements specified in the final rule.
Those incremental costs reflect hardware and software costs, as well as
costs for redesign, validation, and labor. The FRE estimated that the
incremental cost associated with the final rule ranged from
approximately $13.26 million to $33.52 million in 2022 dollars.
This rulemaking is a deregulatory action under E.O. 14192 because
it would reduce the implementation burden associated with the December
2024 final rule, which increased the pre-crash data recording duration
and sample rate required under 49 CFR part 563. While the substantive
requirements adopted in the December 2024 final rule remain unchanged,
the agency is proposing to modify the compliance schedule in response
to petitions for reconsideration that identified implementation
challenges and risk of unintended consequences.
Petitioners explained that the original compliance date imposed a
rigid and accelerated timeline that did not align with typical vehicle
development cycles. These conditions would have imposed high compliance
costs, disrupted product planning, and could have resulted in the
removal or disabling of EDR functionality in some vehicle models--
undermining the very safety objectives the rule was designed to
advance. Quantified cost savings are discussed in more detail above, in
Section IV.A. Also, as noted, the safety benefits of the December 2024
final rule were unquantified. This was similar when NHTSA established
Part 563. This was due to the difficulties in estimating both the exact
portion of benefits creditable to an increased amount of EDR data after
a standard is implemented or a safety countermeasure is developed and
of quantifying how the benefits to safety research and emergency
response translate to improved vehicle safety. Nonetheless, the agency
acknowledges that it is likely the implementation timeline created a
regulatory failure by imposing a disproportionate burden relative to
those benefits, particularly for vehicle platforms in late-stage design
or production. The agency seeks comment with information which may aid
this determination. This proposed rule would correct that failure.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), agencies must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of
an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule does not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. I certify that this rulemaking action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The factual basis for this certification is provided below.
The proposed delay in the compliance date and creation of a phase-
in period would reduce the burden on small entities by providing more
time to comply with the new requirements. In addition, limited line
\25\ and small-volume manufacturers \26\ would only need to produce
vehicles with EDRs that meet the requirements, if the vehicle is
equipped with an EDR, on or after September 1, 2032. Manufacturers
producing altered vehicles or vehicles in two or more stages would have
one additional year, until September 1, 2033, for compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Limited line manufacturer means a manufacturer that sells
three or fewer carlines, as that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in
the United States during a production year.
\26\ Small-volume manufacturer as defined in Sec. 571.127,
``Automatic emergency braking systems for light vehicles,'' is an
original vehicle manufacturer that produces or assembles fewer than
5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has concluded that this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
therefore, an analysis is not included.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has examined this rule pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with
States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond
the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that this rule does
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation
with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement. The rule does not have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule would amend an existing regulation. When 49 CFR
part 563 was promulgated in 2006, NHTSA explained its view that any
State laws or regulations that prohibit the types of EDRs addressed by
Part 563 would create a conflict and therefore be preempted.\27\ As a
result, regarding this proposed rule, NHTSA does not believe there are
current State laws or regulations for EDRs that conflict with Part 563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The 2006 final rule promulgating 49 CFR part 563 discussed
preemption at length. See 71 FR 50907, 51029 (August 28, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this E.O., NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of
preemption is discussed above, in the section discussing E.O. 13132
(Federalism). NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that
individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other
administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.
[[Page 54628]]
Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation)
E.O. 13609, ``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation'' (77
FR 26413, May 1, 2012), promotes international regulatory cooperation
to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
The agency is currently participating in the negotiation and
development of technical standards for Event Data Recorders in the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) World Forum for
Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). As a signatory member,
NHTSA is obligated to initiate rulemaking to incorporate safety
requirements and options specified in Global Technical Regulations
(GTRs) if the U.S. votes in the affirmative to establish the GTR. No
GTR for EDRs has been developed at this time. NHTSA has analyzed this
proposed rule under the policies and agency responsibilities of E.O.
13609 and has determined this rulemaking would have no effect on
international regulatory cooperation.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this
notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Pursuant to 49 CFR
1.81, the Secretary has delegated the ``functions'' under NEPA to the
Administrators ``as they relate to the matters within the primary
responsibility of each Operating Administration.'' NHTSA has determined
that this proposed rule is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR
771.118(c)(4). Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an
agency's NEPA procedures that do not normally have a significant impact
on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). This
rulemaking, which proposes to amend the regulations regarding Event
Data Recorders to extend the lead time and establish a four-year phase-
in, is categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4)
(Planning and administrative activities not involving or leading
directly to construction, such as: Training, technical assistance and
research; promulgation of rules, regulations, directives, or program
guidance; approval of project concepts; engineering; and operating
assistance to transit authorities to continue existing service or
increase service to meet routine demand). NHTSA does not anticipate any
environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances
present in connection with this rulemaking.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), a Federal agency must request and
receive approval from OMB before it collects certain information from
the public and 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. On May 28, 2025, and November 18, 2025, NHTSA
published notices and requests for comment on a reinstatement with
modification of a previously approved information collection to collect
information regarding a reporting and recordkeeping requirement to
facilitate enforcement of updates to FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant crash
protection.'' Those documents also requested to rename the Information
Collection Request (ICR) associated with OMB Control No. 2127-0535 as
``49 CFR part 585; Phase-In Reporting Requirements'' and to consolidate
all phase-in reporting requirements including in 49 CFR part 585 in
that ICR. This proposed rule would establish new information collection
requirements for phase-in reporting and record retention requirements
related to EDRs. The ICR for a reinstatement with modification of a
previously approved information collection described below has been
forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and
the expected burden.
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Title: Phase-In Reporting Requirements.
OMB Control Number: 2127-0535.
Form Number: N/A.
Type of Request: Reinstatement with modification of a previously
approved information collection.
Type of Review Requested: Regular.
Requested Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years from date of
approval.
Summary of the Collection of Information: This collection would
require manufacturers of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 3,855
kg (8,500 pounds) or less that are equipped with EDRs to provide motor
vehicle production data for the following four years: September 1,
2028, to August 31, 2029; September 1, 2029, to August 31, 2030;
September 1, 2030, to August 31, 2031; and September 1, 2031, to August
31, 2032. Manufacturers would annually submit a report, and maintain
records related to the report, concerning the number of such vehicles
that meet the EDR requirements of Part 563 during the phase-in of those
requirements.
Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: The purpose of the reporting requirements would be to aid
the agency in determining whether a manufacturer of passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 3,855
kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg
(5,500 pounds) or less, has complied with the event data recorder
requirements during the phase-in of those requirements.
Affected Public: The respondents are manufacturers of passenger
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses having a gross
vehicle weight rating of 3,855 kg (8,500 pounds) or less that are
equipped with EDRs.
Estimated Number of Respondents: Approximately 22 vehicle
manufacturers.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: NHTSA estimates that the total
annual hour burden is 22 hours.
The annual burden involves the tasks of collection of the
information required by the annual report as well as placing the
information in a form suitable for record keeping and data retrieval.
Because almost all the information required is already recorded by the
manufacturers as part of their production control and tracking systems,
a nominal assessment of half a burden hour per respondent is estimated
for data retrieval and report preparation and half a burden hour per
respondent for the record keeping of the data. Therefore, NHTSA
estimates that the average total burden for submitting data will be 11
hours per year (22 manufacturers x .5 hours = 11 hours) and estimates
that the average total burden for record retention will be 11 hours per
year (22 manufacturers x .5 hours = 11 hours). NHTSA estimates the
labor costs associated with these labor hours using hourly labor rates
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS estimates that
hourly wages represent approximately 70.2 percent of total compensation
for private industry workers.\28\ For the labor costs associated
[[Page 54629]]
with this ICR, NHTSA uses the mean hourly wage of $40.64 per hour for
``Technical Writers'' (occupational code 27-3042) for the Motor Vehicle
Manufacturing Industry (Sectors 31, 32, and 33) \29\ and applies the
70.2 percent factor to find the total compensation rate of $57.89 per
hour ($40.64 per hour divided by 0.705). The total annual labor cost
associated with the burden hours is estimated to be $1,273.58 (time
burden of 22 hours x $57.89 cost per hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Table 1. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by
ownership (June 2025), available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf (accessed September 12, 2025).
\29\ See May 2023 National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates, NAICS 336100--Motor Vehicle
Manufacturing, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/naics4_336100.htm#27-0000 (accessed September 12, 2025).
Table 1--Estimated Annual Burden Hours and Labor Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annual Total annual
Information collection Number of burden hours Hourly labor labor cost per Total annual Total annual
respondents per respondent cost respondent burden hours labor cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase-In Reporting...................................... 22 .5 $57.89 $28.95 11 $636.79
Phase-In Recordkeeping.................................. 22 .5 57.89 28.95 11 636.79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 22 1 57.89 57.89 22 1,273.58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $0
NHTSA estimates that there are no costs associated with the
proposed information collection other than labor costs associated with
the burden hours.
Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as SAE. The NTTAA directs
agencies to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards. The NTTAA requires agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in lieu of government-unique standards except where
inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical. In the December 2024
final rule, NHTSA provided a discussion of why that final rule declined
to use voluntary consensus standards. This discussion remains
applicable to this proposed rule which would not change aspects of Part
563 for which there are voluntary consensus standards. Please refer to
Section IV.D for discussion of voluntary consensus standards in regard
to OMB Circular A-119.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires
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 expenditures by States, local or Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of
1995) in any one year. This proposed rule does not contain Federal
mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
State, local and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100
million or more in any one year (as adjusted for inflation). Thus, the
rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)
E.O. 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires Federal agencies
to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government
basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations,
legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy
statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. NHTSA has assessed
the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that
this proposed rule would not have tribal implications that require
consultation under E.O. 13175.
Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through www.dot.gov/privacy. To facilitate comment tracking and response, we encourage
commenters to provide their name, or the name of their organization;
however, submission of names is completely optional. 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, or labor union.). 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).
Plain Language Requirement
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 requires each agency to write all rules
in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
[[Page 54630]]
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is
not clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.
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 twice a year. You may use the RIN
contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this
action in the Unified Agenda.
Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number indicated in 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.
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and
copy certain portions of your submissions.
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you wish the Docket 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, the Docket will
return the postcard by mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
You should submit a redacted ``public version'' of your comment
(including redacted versions of any additional documents or
attachments) to the docket using any of the methods identified under
ADDRESSES. This ``public version'' of your comment should contain only
the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made and
from which those portions for which confidential treatment is claimed
has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to do
this.
You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment
directly to the Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential
treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set forth
the information specified in Part 512. This includes the materials for
which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in more detail
below); supporting information, pursuant to Sec. 512.8; and a
certificate, pursuant to Sec. 512.4(b) and part 512, Appendix A.
You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
unredacted ``confidential version'' of the information for which you
are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.6, the words
``ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' or ``CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS'' (as applicable) must
appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be
confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the
page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information
for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: ``[ ].''
You are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one
redacted ``public version'' of the information for which you are
seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to Sec. 512.5(a)(2), the
redacted ``public version'' should include redactions of any
information for which you are seeking confidential treatment (i.e., the
only information that should be unredacted is information for which you
are not seeking confidential treatment). NHTSA is currently treating
electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting
confidential business information to the agency under Part 512. Please
do not send a hardcopy of a request for confidential treatment to
NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be sent to Dan Rabinovitz in
the Office of the Chief Counsel at [email protected]. You may
either submit your request via email or request a secure file transfer
link. If you are submitting the request via email, please also email a
courtesy copy of the request to Eli Wachtel at [email protected].
Will the Agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after
that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider
in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we 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 the docket 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, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
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.
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.
Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)
For NHTSA's December 2024 EDR final rule, this NPRM proposes to
delay the compliance date from September 1, 2027, to September 1, 2028.
This NPRM also proposes to implement a phase-in period for EDRs to meet
the new requirements. As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of
this rule can be found at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2025-
0050, in the SUMMARY section of this proposed rule.
[[Page 54631]]
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 563
Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
49 CFR Part 585
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
chapter V as follows:
PART 563--EVENT DATA RECORDERS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 563 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30101, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166,
30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
0
2. Add Sec. 563.4 to read as follows:
Sec. 563.4 Certification for Phase-in.
(a) Vehicle certification information. At any time during the
production years ending August 31, 2029, August 31, 2030, August 31,
2031, and August 31, 2032, each manufacturer shall, upon request from
the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide information
identifying the vehicles (by make, model and vehicle identification
number) that have been equipped with EDRs meeting the requirements of
Sec. 563.7(a) and (b). The manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as
equipped with an EDR meeting these requirements is irrevocable.
(b) Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. For the
purpose of calculating average annual production of vehicles for each
manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured by each
manufacturer under Sec. 563.4(a), a vehicle produced by more than one
manufacturer shall be attributed to a single manufacturer as follows:
(1) A vehicle which is imported shall be attributed to the
importer.
(2) A vehicle manufactured in the United States by more than one
manufacturer, one of which also markets the vehicle, shall be
attributed to the manufacturer which markets the vehicle.
(c) A vehicle produced by more than one manufacturer shall be
attributed to any one of the vehicle's manufacturers specified by an
express written contract, reported to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration under 49 CFR part 585, between the manufacturer
so specified and the manufacturer to which the vehicle would otherwise
be attributed under Sec. 563.4(b).
(d) For the purposes of calculating average annual production of
vehicles for each manufacturer and the number of vehicles manufactured
by each manufacturer under Sec. 563.4(a), only count vehicles to which
this regulation is applicable as specified Sec. 563.3 and are equipped
with an EDR.
0
2. Revise Sec. 563.7 to read as follows:
Sec. 563.7 Data elements.
(a) * * *
Table I to Sec. 563.7(a)--Data Elements Required for All Vehicles Equipped With an EDR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data sample
Data element Recording interval/time \1\ (relative rate (samples
to time zero) per second)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta-V, longitudinal.................................... 0 to 250 ms or 0 to End of Event Time 100
plus 30 ms, whichever is shorter.
Maximum delta-V, longitudinal............................ 0-300 ms or 0 to End of Event Time N/A
plus 30 ms, whichever is shorter.
Time, maximum delta-V.................................... 0-300 ms or 0 to End of Event Time N/A
plus 30 ms, whichever is shorter.
Speed, vehicle indicated................................. -20 to 0 sec \4\..................... \4\ 10
Engine throttle, % full (or accelerator pedal, % full)... -20 to 0 sec \4\..................... \4\ 10
Service brake, on/off.................................... -20 to 0 sec \4\..................... \4\ 10
Ignition cycle, crash.................................... -1.0 sec............................. N/A
Ignition cycle, download................................. At time of download \3\.............. N/A
Safety belt status, driver............................... -1.0 sec............................. N/A
Frontal air bag warning lamp, on/off \2\................. -1.0 sec............................. N/A
Frontal air bag deployment, time to deploy, in the case Event................................ N/A
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, in the case Event................................ N/A
of a single stage air bag, or time to first stage
deployment, in the case of a multi-stage air bag, right
front passenger.
Multi-event, number of event............................. Event................................ N/A
Time from event 1 to 2................................... As needed............................ N/A
Complete file recorded (yes, no)......................... Following other data................. N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pre-crash data and crash data are asynchronous. The sample time accuracy requirement for pre-crash time is -
0.1 to 1.0 sec (e.g., T = -1 would need to occur between -1.1 and 0 seconds.)
\2\ The frontal air bag warning lamp is the readiness indicator specified in S4.5.2 of FMVSS No. 208, and may
also illuminate to indicate a malfunction in another part of the deployable restraint system.
\3\ The ignition cycle at the time of download is not required to be recorded at the time of the crash, but
shall be reported during the download process.
\4\ Except as provided in the following phase-in, for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2031, the
required recording interval is -5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the required data sample rate is two
samples per second. For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2028 but before August 31, 2029, 25
percent of each manufacturer's vehicle production must have the recording interval and data sample rate
displayed in this table. For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2029 but before August 31, 2030,
50 percent of each manufacturer's vehicle production must have the recording interval and data sample rate
displayed in this table. For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2030 but before August 31, 2031,
75 percent of each manufacturer's vehicle production must have the recording interval and data sample rate
displayed in this table. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2032 by a small-volume manufacturer or
limited-line manufacturer, the required recording interval is -5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the
required data sample rate is two samples per second. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2033 by
manufacturers producing altered vehicles or vehicles in two or more stages, the required recording interval is
-5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the required data sample rate is two samples per second.
(b) * * *
[[Page 54632]]
Table II to Sec. 563.7(b)--Data Elements Required for Vehicles Under Specified Minimum Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recording interval/time Data sample
Data element name Condition for requirement \1\ (relative to time rate (per
zero) second)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lateral acceleration.................... If recorded \2\........... N/A....................... N/A
Longitudinal acceleration............... If recorded............... N/A....................... N/A
Normal acceleration..................... If recorded............... N/A....................... N/A
Delta-V, lateral........................ If recorded............... 0-250 ms or 0 to End of 100
Event Time plus 30 ms,
whichever is shorter.
Maximum delta-V, lateral................ If recorded............... 0-300 ms or 0 to End of N/A
Event Time plus 30 ms,
whichever is shorter.
Time maximum delta-V, lateral........... If recorded............... 0-300 ms or 0 to End of N/A
Event Time plus 30 ms,
whichever is shorter.
Time for maximum delta-V, resultant..... If recorded............... 0-300 ms or 0 to End of N/A
Event Time plus 30 ms,
whichever is shorter.
Engine rpm.............................. If recorded............... -20 to 0 sec \5\.......... \5\ 10
Vehicle roll angle...................... If recorded............... -1.0 up to 5.0 sec \3\.... 10
ABS activity (engaged, non-engaged)..... If recorded............... -20 to 0 sec \5\.......... \5\ 10
Stability control (on, off, or engaged). If recorded............... -20 to 0 sec \5\.......... \5\ 10
Steering input.......................... If recorded............... -20 to 0 sec \5\.......... \5\ 10
Safety belt status, right front If recorded............... -1.0 sec.................. N/A
passenger (buckled, not buckled).
Frontal air bag suppression switch If recorded............... -1.0 sec.................. N/A
status, right front passenger (on, off,
or auto).
Frontal air bag deployment, time to nth If equipped with a Event..................... N/A
stage, driver \4\. driver's frontal air bag
with a multi-stage
inflator.
Frontal air bag deployment, time to nth If equipped with a right Event..................... N/A
stage, right front passenger \4\. front passenger's frontal
air bag with a multi-
stage inflator.
Frontal air bag deployment, nth stage If recorded............... Event..................... N/A
disposal, driver, Y/N (whether the nth
stage deployment was for occupant
restraint or propellant disposal
purposes).
Frontal air bag deployment, nth stage If recorded............... Event..................... N/A
disposal, right front passenger, Y/N
(whether the nth stage deployment was
for occupant restraint or propellant
disposal purposes).
Side air bag deployment, time to deploy, If recorded............... Event..................... N/A
driver.
Side air bag deployment, time to deploy, If recorded............... Event..................... N/A
right front passenger.
Side curtain/tube air bag deployment, If recorded............... Event..................... N/A
time to deploy, driver side.
Side curtain/tube air bag deployment, If recorded............... Event..................... N/A
time to deploy, right side.
Pretensioner deployment, time to fire, If recorded............... Event..................... N/A
driver.
Pretensioner deployment, time to fire, If recorded............... Event..................... N/A
right front passenger.
Seat track position switch, foremost, If recorded............... -1.0 sec.................. N/A
status, driver.
Seat track position switch, foremost, If recorded............... -1.0 sec.................. N/A
status, right front passenger.
Occupant size classification, driver.... If recorded............... -1.0 sec.................. N/A
Occupant size classification, right If recorded............... -1.0 sec.................. N/A
front passenger.
Occupant position classification, driver If recorded............... -1.0 sec.................. N/A
Occupant position classification, right If recorded............... -1.0 sec.................. N/A
front passenger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pre-crash data and crash data are asynchronous. The sample time accuracy requirement for pre-crash time is -
0.1 to 1.0 sec (e.g., T = -1 would need to occur between -1.1 and 0 seconds.).
\2\ ``If recorded'' means if the data is recorded in non-volatile memory for the purpose of subsequent
downloading.
\3\ ``vehicle roll angle'' may be recorded in any time duration; -1.0 sec to 5.0 sec is suggested.
\4\ List this element n -1 times, once for each stage of a multi-stage air bag system.
\5\ Except as provided in the following phase-in, for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2031, the
required recording interval is -5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the required data sample rate is two
samples per second. For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2028 but before August 31, 2029, 25
percent of each manufacturer's vehicle production must have the recording interval and data sample rate
displayed in this table. For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2029 but before August 31, 2030,
50 percent of each manufacturer's vehicle production must have the recording interval and data sample rate
displayed in this table. For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2030 but before August 31, 2031,
75 percent of each manufacturer's vehicle production must have the recording interval and data sample rate
displayed in this table. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2032 by a small-volume manufacturer or
limited-line manufacturer, the required recording interval is -5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the
required data sample rate is two samples per second. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2033 by
manufacturers producing altered vehicles or vehicles in two or more stages, the required recording interval is
-5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the required data sample rate is two samples per second.
[[Page 54633]]
PART 585--PHASE-IN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
0
3. The authority citation for part 585 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
0
4. Add Subpart P, consisting of Sec. Sec. 585.142 through 585.148, to
read as follows:
Subpart P--Event Data Recorders Phase-In Reporting Requirements
Sec.
585.142 Scope
585.143 Purpose
585.144 Applicability
585.145 Definitions
585.146 Response to inquiries
585.147 Reporting requirements
585.148 Records
Subpart P--Event Data Recorders Phase-In Reporting Requirements
Sec. 585.142 Scope
This subpart establishes requirements for manufacturers of
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with
a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle
weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 pounds) or less, except for walk-in van-type
trucks or vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal
Service, to submit a report per Sec. 585.147, and maintain records
related to the report according to Sec. 585.148, concerning the number
of such vehicles that meet the requirements of part 563, Event data
recorders (49 CFR 563).
Sec. 585.143 Purpose
The purpose of these reporting requirements is to assist the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in determining whether a
manufacturer has complied with Part 563 (49 CFR 563).
Sec. 585.144 Applicability
This subpart applies to manufacturers of passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 3,855
kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg
(5,500 pounds) or less, except for walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles
designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service, for which
Part 563 applies. However, this subpart does not apply to vehicles
excluded by Sec. 563.3 from the requirements of that standard.
Sec. 585.145 Definitions
(a) Event data recorder (EDR) is used as defined in 49 CFR 563.5.
Sec. 585.146 Response to inquiries
At any time during the production years ending August 31, 2029,
August 31, 2030, August 31, 2031, and August 31, 2032, each
manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles (by make,
model and vehicle identification number) that have been certified as
complying with part 563 (49 CFR 563). The manufacturer's designation of
a vehicle as a certified vehicle is irrevocable.
Sec. 585.147 Reporting requirements
(a) General reporting requirements. Within 60 days after the end of
the production years ending August 31, 2029, August 31, 2030, August
31, 2031, and August 31, 2032, each manufacturer shall submit a report
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its
compliance with the event data recorder requirements of part 563 (49
CFR 563) for applicable vehicles produced in that year. Each report
shall:
(1) Identify the manufacturer;
(2) State the full name, title, and address of the official
responsible for preparing the report;
(3) Identify the production year being reported on;
(4) Contain a statement regarding whether or not the manufacturer
complied with the event data recorder data element capture requirements
of part 563 (49 CFR 563) for the period covered by the report and the
basis for that statement;
(5) Provide the information specified in paragraph (b) of this
section;
(6) Be written in the English language; and
(7) Be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building, Washington, DC
20590.
(b) Report content--(1) Basis for phase-in production goals. Each
manufacturer must provide the number of passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500
pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500
pounds) or less, except for walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles
designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service,
manufactured for sale in the United States for each of the most recent
three previous production years, or, at the manufacturer's option, for
the most recently ended production year that are equipped with an EDR
that meets the requirements in part 563. A new manufacturer that has
not previously manufactured these vehicles for sale in the United
States must submit a report at the end of the initial production year
for the number of such vehicles manufactured during the initial
production year.
(2) Production. Each manufacturer must report for the production
year for which the report is filed: the number of passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 3,855
kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg
(5,500 pounds) or less, except for walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles
designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service, that are
equipped with an EDR and that do and do not meet Sec. 563.7 (49 CFR
563.7).
(3) Vehicles produced by more than one manufacturer. Each
manufacturer whose reporting of information is affected by one or more
of the express written contracts permitted by Sec. 563.7(b)(5) must:
(i) Report the existence of each contract, including the names of
all parties to the contract, and explain how the contract affects the
report being submitted.
(ii) Report the actual number of vehicles covered by each contract.
Sec. 585.148 Records
Each manufacturer must maintain records of the Vehicle
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is
reported under Sec. 585.147 until December 31, 2033.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95. The Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; 49 CFR
1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29A.
Jonathan Morrison,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-21506 Filed 11-26-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P