[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 22, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37289-37300]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12860]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 563

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0021]
RIN 2127-AM12

Event Data Recorders

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing to amend its regulations regarding Event
Data Recorders (EDRs) to extend the EDR recording period for timed data
metrics from 5 seconds of pre-crash data at a frequency of 2 Hz to 20
seconds of pre-crash data at a frequency of 10 Hz (i.e., increase from
2 samples per second to 10 samples per second). This NPRM begins the
process of fulfilling the mandate of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act) to establish the appropriate recording
period in NHTSA's EDR regulation.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to be received not
later than August 22, 2022. We are proposing an effective date of the
first September 1st one year from the publication of the final rule.

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 https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process.
DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy. In order 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. Whether or not commenters identify themselves,
all timely comments will be fully considered.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential

business information, to the Docket at the address given above. When
you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential
business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in our confidential business information
regulation (49 CFR part 512).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions, please
contact Ms. Carla Rush, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For
legal questions, please contact Ms. Sara Bennett, Office of Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:
202-366-3820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Overview of Event Data Recorder Technology and Regulatory
History
    B. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
    C. Event Data Recorders Duration Study
II. Proposal
    A. Pre-Crash EDR Recording Duration
    B. Pre-Crash EDR Recording Frequency
    C. Benefits
    D. Costs
    E. Lead Time
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

A. Overview of Event Data Recorder Technology and Regulatory History

    Event data recorders (EDRs) are devices that are used to record
safety information about motor vehicle crashes immediately before and
during a crash. The recorded information can aid crash investigators to
assess the performance of specific safety equipment before and during a
crash. This information can assist the agency and others with
identifying potential opportunities for safety improvement in vehicles
already on the road, as well as contributing to improve future vehicle
designs and more effective safety regulations. This information could
also aid first responders in assessing the severity of a crash and
estimating the probability of serious injury in vehicles equipped with
Advanced Automatic Crash Notification (AACN) systems and can improve
defect investigations and crash data collection quality. (See the 2006
final rule establishing the EDR regulation (discussed below) for
further details. (71 FR 50998.)
    In August 2006, NHTSA established 49 CFR part 563 (part 563), which
sets forth requirements for data elements, data capture and format,
data retrieval, and data crash survivability for EDRs. (71 FR 50998.)
Part 563 does not mandate that vehicles have EDRs, but is instead an
``if equipped'' standard that applies only to light vehicles required
to have frontal air bags that a manufacturer chooses to voluntarily
equip with EDRs.\1\ Part 563 ensures that all EDRs subject to the
regulation capture the same core set of data elements in a crash,
standardizes the parameters (format, duration, etc.) of captured data
elements, and sets minimum requirements for data survivability.\2\ Part
563 further requires that manufacturers of vehicles with EDRs that are
subject to part 563 make commercially available a tool for the purpose
of imaging \3\ the data collected by the EDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2012, NHTSA proposed to convert part 563's ``if
equipped'' requirements for EDRs into a new Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) mandating the installation of EDRs in most
light vehicles. The NPRM did not propose making any changes to the
current EDR regulation's performance requirements, including those
for the required data elements (77 FR 74145). In 2019, NHTSA
withdrew this proposal due to the near universal installation of
EDRs on light vehicles (84 FR 2804).
    \2\ Part 563 requires EDR data to survive the crash tests in
FMVSS Nos. 208, ``Occupant crash protection,'' and 214, ``Side
impact protection.''
    \3\ For the purposes herein, we are using the term ``imaging''
to refer to the process by which data are retrieved from an EDR.
When imaging the data on an EDR, the original data set remains
intact and unchanged in the memory banks of the EDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables I and II of part 563 list the various data elements that are
covered under the standard. Table I lists data elements that all EDRs
subject to part 563 are required to record, along with the recording
interval (duration) and sampling frequency. Table II lists data
elements that EDRs subject to part 563 are not required to record, but
that are subject to part 563 if they are recorded. Table II also
provides the recording interval (duration) and sampling frequency for
each listed data element. In addition, all data elements in Tables I
and II must be reported according to the range, accuracy, and
resolution in Table III. As is relevant to this rulemaking, several
data elements in both Table I and Table II must be captured for a
duration of 5 seconds prior to the crash (speed, engine throttle,
service brake, engine RPM, ABS activity, stability control, steering
input). NHTSA established this 5-second duration because the agency
concluded that it would be long enough to ensure the usefulness of the
data in crash reconstruction while also minimizing the risk that the
data capture process would over-tax the EDR's microprocessor, which
could cause a malfunction that could lead to a loss of data.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NHTSA had originally proposed an 8-second duration in the
NPRM. 69 FR 32942 (June 14, 2004). However, NHTSA decided to reduce
the duration in response to public comments. 71 FR 51020 (Aug. 28,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Part 563 became fully effective on September 1, 2012. The agency
estimates that 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 have part 563 compliant EDRs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In the 2012 NPRM it was estimated that about 92 percent of
model year 2010 light vehicles had some EDR capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act

    Section 24303 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
(FAST Act), Public Law 119-14 (Dec. 4, 2015), requires NHTSA to conduct
a study ``to determine the amount of time event data recorders
installed in passenger motor vehicles should capture and record for
retrieval [of] vehicle-related data in conjunction with an event in
order to provide sufficient information to investigate the cause of
motor vehicle crashes,'' and to submit a report containing the findings
of this study to Congress. Further, within two years of submitting this
report to Congress, NHTSA ``shall promulgate regulations to establish
the appropriate period during which event data recorders installed in
passenger motor vehicles may capture and record for retrieval vehicle-
related data to the time necessary to provide accident investigators
with vehicle-related information pertinent to crashes involving such
motor vehicles.''
    As discussed in detail in section C below, NHTSA completed the
Event Data Recorders Duration Study required by Section 24303. On
September 28, 2018, NHTSA submitted a Report to Congress summarizing
the results of the study to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.\6\
This NPRM begins the process of promulgating regulations to establish
appropriate EDR data recording durations as mandated under the FAST
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2022,
March) Results of event data recorders pre-crash duration study: A
report to Congress (Report No. DOT HS 813 082A).

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

C. Event Data Recorders Duration Study

    To meet the agency's obligations under Section 24303 of the FAST
Act, NHTSA contracted with researchers at Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) to conduct a study to
determine the recording duration that would be necessary for EDRs to
provide sufficient vehicle-related data to investigate the cause of
motor vehicle crashes (the ``EDR Duration Study'').\7\ Because crash
investigators must understand the events leading up to a crash to
determine crash causation, the EDR Duration Study sought to determine
the necessary recording duration to encompass a vehicle's relevant
maneuvers for three crash types that could benefit from more than 5
seconds of pre-crash recording time: rear-end, intersection, and road
departure crashes.\8\ For all three of these crash types, the study
hypothesizes that it is necessary to capture the initiation of crash
avoidance maneuvers by the driver, if any, to better determine
causation. The specific crash avoidance maneuvers examined in the study
were the driver's release of the accelerator, and the initiation of
pre-crash braking and evasive steering. In addition, for intersection
crashes, it is also necessary to capture vehicle data for the duration
that the vehicle is approaching and traversing an intersection, since
intersection crashes often have complex causes that extend back further
than when the driver begins making crash avoidance maneuvers (e.g., a
rolling stop at the stop sign or any indication of erratic driving
during the approach).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Chen, R.J., Tatem, W.M., & Gabler, H.C. (2022, March) Event
data recorder duration study (Appendix to a Report to Congress.
Report No. DOT HS 813 082B). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
    \8\ Ibid. Phase I did not analyze lane departure behavior prior
to a road departure crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EDR Duration Study was conducted in two phases. Phase I
provided an estimate of how often EDRs fail to record a sufficient
duration of pre-crash data; however, this analysis did not provide
insight into what duration beyond 5 seconds of pre-crash data is needed
to capture crash causation. The emphasis in Phase II was on using
driver actions in normal driving to determine the complete duration of
driver pre-crash actions.
    Phase I used cumulative distributions of the EDR data pulled from
NHTSA's National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System
(NASS-CDS) database \9\ \10\ to estimate how frequently the current 5-
second EDR duration requirement failed to capture the initiation of
pre-crash driver maneuvers in rear-end, intersection, and road
departure crashes. The Phase I study also estimated how frequently the
5-second duration did not capture the vehicle's approach and traversal
phase of an intersection or road departure.\11\ The results of Phase I
helped establish the need for an increase in the EDR recording duration
by proving the inadequacy of the 5-second recording duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NASS-CDS was utilized because it contains over 9,000 EDR
downloads. NASS-CDS sampling weights were used in the calculations
unless otherwise specified.
    \10\ The National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Study (NMVCCS)
was also analyzed, but due to the small sample size distributions of
pre-crash maneuvers were not conducted. However, the NMVCCS dataset
was analyzed to determine the frequency of vehicle malfunctions in
crashes, and none of the 50 vehicles in the final dataset were
reported as having a vehicle malfunction by the on-site
investigator.
    \11\ Intersection traversal time is not directly measured by a
vehicle's EDR; researchers calculated traversal time for this study
by reconstructing crash events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Phase II of the EDR Duration Study, researchers used data from
two previously conducted naturalistic driving studies (NDS) to
understand the complete duration (5 seconds or longer) of driver pre-
crash actions and estimate the recording duration that would be
necessary to capture the initiation of these actions in the same three
types of crash scenarios examined in Phase I.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The two studies used were a 100-Car NDS conducted by
Virginia Tech Transportation Institute [Neale, V.L., Klauer, S.G.,
Knipling, R.R., Dingus, T.A., Holbrook, G.T., and Petersen, A.
(2002) The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase 1--Experimental
Design. (DOT Report HS 809 536) Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration], and the Second Strategic Highway
Research Program (SHRP-2) NDS conducted by the Transportation
Research Board of The National Academies, [Hankey, J.M., M.A. Perez,
and J.A. McClafferty. Description of the SHRP 2 naturalistic
database and the crash, near-crash, and baseline data sets, Task
Report, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Blacksburg, VA,
2016].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Phase I Study
    The purpose of the Phase I study was to determine the frequency
with which EDRs with a 5-second recording duration fail to record a
sufficient duration of pre-crash data to determine crash causation for
rear-end,\13\ intersection, and roadway departure crashes. Using EDR
data pulled from NHTSA's NASS-CDS database from 2000-2015,\14\ Phase I
researchers examined 1,583 raw cases. Of these cases, 329 were rear-end
crashes, 839 were intersection crashes, and 415 were road departure
crashes. Based on these cases, researchers found that the current 5-
second recording duration required under part 563 failed to capture the
initiation of driver crash avoidance maneuvers for a certain percentage
of all three selected crash types. These findings are good indications
that a 5-second pre-crash recording duration is inadequate if the goal
is to capture the complete pre-crash time history--principally the
driver's pre-crash behavior--so that NHTSA, crash investigators, and
manufacturers can better understand the crash causation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For rear-end crashes the striking vehicle was examined.
    \14\ Up until 2015, NASS was comprised of two probability
sampling systems: the General Estimates System (GES) and CDS. Then
in 2016, the Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS) replaced the
CDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether the EDR had captured an entire crash event,
Phase I researchers examined the status of the available EDR pre-crash
data elements--vehicle's accelerator pedal, service brakes, and
steering angle--over the course of the 5 seconds of data. The
initiation of the crash event would be indicated by the release of the
accelerator pedal, the initiation of braking, or a change in the
steering angle from zero degrees. Again, cumulative distributions of
the data were used to determine the percentage of crashes where the
initiation of the driver's pre-crash maneuver falls outside the 5-
second pre-crash recording duration.
    For rear-end crashes, the Phase I researchers found that the
current 5-second EDR recording duration failed to capture 9% of
accelerator pedal releases, 35% of pre-crash braking initiations, and
80% of evasive steering initiations. For intersection crashes, the 5-
second recording duration failed to capture 4% of accelerator pedal
release instances, 35% of pre-crash braking initiations, and 64% of
evasive steering initiations. In addition, it did not capture 13% of
initial intersection boundary crossings.\15\ Finally, for road
departure crashes, the 5-second recording duration failed to capture 8%
of accelerator pedal releases, 35% of pre-crash braking initiations,
and 88% of evasive steering initiations. However, the analysis of road
departure traversal time shows that, in nearly all road departure
events, the time period between initial road departure to final rest
was less than 5 seconds, which indicates that the pre-crash maneuvers
that were not recorded by the 5-second duration likely took place
before the vehicle went off-road. Table 1 below summarizes the Phase I
findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Intersection boundaries were used as a reference point to
divide the approach and traversal phase of an intersection (e.g.,
the edge of the stop bar or cross walk marking closest to the center
of the intersection was used as the boundary).

   Table 1--Percentage of Events for Which 5 Seconds of EDR Recording
                 Duration was Insufficient From NASS-CDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    EDR failed to record
             Driver pre-crash maneuver               maneuver initiation
                                                          (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear-End:
    Braking Input.................................                   35%
    Steering Input................................                    80
    Accelerator Release...........................                     9
Intersection:
    Braking Input.................................                    35
    Steering Input................................                    64
    Accelerator Release...........................                     5
Road Departure:
    Braking Input.................................                    35
    Steering Input................................                    88
    Accelerator Release...........................                     8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these findings, the EDR Duration Study concluded that in
many cases, the 5-second recording duration may not be sufficient to
determine the factors that led to the crash or the pre-crash actions
taken by the driver to avoid the collision, meaning that EDRs currently
would not always provide investigators crash-related information that
could assist in the determination of crash causation.
2. Phase II Study
    The purpose of the Phase II study was to determine an appropriate
EDR recording duration to provide crash investigators with sufficient
data to determine crash causation. NDS data were analyzed to understand
the complete duration (5 seconds or longer) of driver pre-crash actions
in car following, intersection traversal, and lane departure crashes.
The Phase II study used data from two previously conducted naturalistic
driving studies: a 2002 100-Car study conducted by Virginia Tech, and
the 2016 Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP-2) NDS
conducted by the Transportation Research Board of The National
Academies.\16\ To estimate the recording duration needed to capture the
initiation of a crash event, the Phase II researchers analyzed near-
miss driving events as proxies for actual crash avoidance driving
maneuvers that were analyzed in the Phase I study.\17\ The main finding
in Phase II of the study was that 20 seconds of pre-crash data would
encompass the 90th percentile recording duration required for the three
crash modes and the crash avoidance maneuvers analyzed. A ``90th
percentile recording duration'' means that, based on the cumulative
distributions for all three crash modes and crash avoidance maneuvers
analyzed, a minimum of 20 seconds of pre-crash data recording is
necessary to investigate crash causation, as this period captures the
driver pre-crash actions in 90% of the dataset.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A naturalistic driving study is a research method that
involves equipping vehicles with unobtrusive cameras and
instrumentation to record real-world driver behavior and
performance.
    \17\ Phase II of the study assumed that the driver's behavior in
near-miss driving events would correlate to actual crash avoidance
driving maneuvers.
    \18\ This duration is influenced heavily by the inclusion of
intersection crashes. Without the inclusion of intersection crashes
12.3 seconds of data would encompass the 90th percentile recording
duration for rear-end and road departure crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the recording duration needed to capture rear-end
crashes, the Phase II researchers examined the duration of ``car
following'' braking events from the 100-car NDS. By looking at the time
duration between the start of the braking event (i.e., when the driver
applies the brake) and the vehicle's closest approach to the lead
vehicle, the Phase II researchers were able to approximate the duration
of a rear-end crash event. The results were different depending on
whether the lead vehicle was stopped or travelling (e.g., events with
stopped lead vehicle are associated with longer time to closest
approach). The findings in the study are that for braking events with a
stopped lead vehicle, the median was 4.5 seconds and the 90th
percentile time to closest approach \19\ was 12.3 seconds. The SHRP-2
dataset was also used to characterize driver pre-crash behavior in
striking rear-end crash events. The approach was to use striking rear-
end crash events from the SHRP-2 NDS to provide a threshold to
determine the required time duration to fully capture driver pre-crash
behavior.\20\ The analysis of rear-end crashes in the SHRP-2 NDS
resulted in 90th percentile distributions of final accelerator release,
brake initiation, and evasive steering durations of 12, 10, and 3
seconds, respectively.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The time to closest approach is calculated as the time
between driver brake applications to time when the instrumented
vehicle is at the closest longitudinal distance with respect to the
lead vehicle.
    \20\ SHRP-2 data were used to better capture the diversity of
driver behavior nationwide.
    \21\ Final accelerator release was calculated as the time point
prior to impact, where impact is time 0, when the driver releases
the accelerator (accelerator status ``0'') for the final time. Final
brake initiation was calculated as the time point prior to impact
when the driver depresses the brake pedal. Time of evasive steering
initiation was calculated as the time point prior to impact when the
driver's steering rate equaled or exceeded 500[deg]/s for the first
time. These metrics were not collected in the 100-car NDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the recording duration needed to capture intersection
crashes, the Phase II researchers examined the time duration for
drivers to approach and traverse through an intersection during normal
driving.\22\ This analysis used the 100-Car NDS data, and found that
the current EDR pre-crash recording time of 5 seconds captures less
than 1 percent of the total intersection event time. The results of
this analysis support that a recording time of 15 seconds would capture
approximately 50 percent of the total intersection event time, and 18.6
seconds would capture 90 percent.\23\ The proposed recording

time of 20 seconds would capture approximately 99 percent of the total
intersection event time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The sequence of driver actions leading to and resulting in
an intersection collision can be divided into four phases: the
approach phase, the traversal phase, any evasive action, and finally
the impact. For almost all intersection crash types, the driver
actions which lead to the crash, e.g. running a red light, occurred
during the approach phase. In most crashes once in the intersection,
the error has already been committed. If an EDR can capture the
approach phase of an intersection crash then the entire crash will
be captured. However, EDRs, which record the time of transition
between the approach and traversal phase, can capture stop sign
running, rolling stops, and red-light running.
    \23\ Cumulative distributions for the approach, traversal, and
total times were analyzed for each traffic control device type,
approach action, traversal action, and lane size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the recording duration needed to capture road
departure crashes, the Phase II researchers examined ``lane excursion''
events (i.e., minor lane departures which occur as a result of normal
lane keeping behavior that do not result in crashes) in the 100-Car
NDS. The duration of a lane excursion event was calculated as the time
from the moment a vehicle began to drift, depart the lane, to the time
when the vehicle fully recovers back within the lane lines. The finding
of the study was that the median duration of all lane excursion events
was about 3.2 seconds, and the 90th percentile of the distribution was
6 seconds. The analysis of 14 road-departure crashes in SHRP-2 NDS
showed that the median accelerator pedal release time to road departure
was 23 seconds, the median brake application was at 1.9 seconds after
road departure, but as early as 21 seconds prior to road departure.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Both lane and road departures were analyzed, because, while
most normal lane excursions do not result in crashes, lane
excursions can lead to road departure crashes if the driver does not
initiate corrective measures in time. Therefore, a characterization
of normal lane excursions duration provides a baseline to establish
sufficient EDR recording duration in order to capture driver lane
keeping behavior prior to road departure crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 summarizes the pertinent Phase II findings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Note the range of time shown for intersection was derived
from intersections with different number of lanes. The lower bound
represents time for 2-lane intersections while the upper bound for
7-lane intersections.

            Table 2--Summary of Typical Driver Maneuver Time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Duration of driver action
                                                   (seconds)
      Driver pre-crash maneuver      -----------------------------------
                                       50th percentile   90th percentile
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rear-End:
    Time to Closest Approach........               4.5              12.3
Intersection:
    Approach + Traversal............         12.6-15.1    \25\ 16.0-18.6
Road Departure: *
    Drift out of lane to Recovery...               3.2               6.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Lane excursion events were examined in the 100-car NDS.

II. Proposal

A. Pre-Crash EDR Recording Duration

    Widespread deployment of EDRs offers an opportunity to use EDR data
to assist in the determination of crash causation and better understand
driver pre-crash behavior. EDRs can provide a comprehensive snapshot of
the driver inputs in the seconds prior to a crash (e.g., acceleration,
brake application, and steering inputs).
    Pursuant to Section 24303 of the FAST Act, and in light of the
conclusions of the EDR Duration Study, NHTSA is proposing to extend the
EDR recording duration for timed data elements from 5 seconds of pre-
crash data to 20 seconds.
    As noted above, Phase I of the EDR Duration Study found that, in a
substantial percentage of crashes in which the EDR is triggered, the
currently required 5-second recording duration was insufficient to
record important information that would assist investigators with crash
reconstruction, such as the initiation of crash avoidance driving
maneuvers, e.g., pre-crash braking. Phase II of the EDR Duration Study
found that 20 seconds of pre-crash data would encompass the 90th
percentile recording duration required for the three crash modes and
the crash avoidance maneuvers analyzed.
    The EDR Duration Study has determined that the 5-second recording
duration is a limitation of current EDRs for the purposes of
investigating crash causation. To assist investigators and vehicle
manufacturers in determining crash causation, the research indicated
that the EDR needs to be able to capture the driver's pre-crash
behavior. The study found that a better understanding of the driver's
pre-crash behavior will also assist in the evaluation of emerging crash
avoidance systems (e.g., lane departure warning, lane keeping assist,
forward collision avoidance, automatic emergency braking, and
intersection safety assistance systems).\26\ Based on the study, it
appears that extending the EDR recording duration to 20 seconds would
help ensure that critical pre-crash data are captured. Therefore, based
on the conclusions of the EDR Duration Study, NHTSA believes it is
reasonable to propose requiring a minimum of 20 seconds of pre-crash
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ We note that, although SAE has specifications on them and
some vehicle manufacturers have started to record crash avoidance
EDR data elements, there are no required or optional EDR data
elements specific to these crash avoidance technologies. However,
knowing the status of required data elements such as service brake
application and accelerator pedal percent and optional data elements
such as steering input, will assist in understanding the performance
of these technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, this proposal is also based on information NHTSA has
learned from its defects investigation experience that EDR data can be
used to assist the agency in assessing whether the vehicle was
operating properly at the time of the event, or to help detect
undesirable operations. For example, in March 2010, NHTSA began to
obtain data from Toyota EDRs as part of its inquiry into allegations of
unintended acceleration (UA), and as a follow-up to the recalls of some
Toyota models for sticking and entrapped accelerator pedals. The Toyota
unintended acceleration study helped determine the root cause of each
crash.\27\ For NHTSA, this served as affirmation of the significant
value that EDR pre-crash data can have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ NHTSA Report No. NHTSA-NVS-2011-ETC, ``Technical Assessment
of Toyota electronic Throttle Control (ETC) Systems,'' January 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we believe a 20 second pre-crash recording duration is
feasible. We are aware that, previously, several manufacturers' EDRs
recorded pre-crash data in excess of the minimum time intervals
required in part 563. For example, a 2007 Ford was shown to have
reported over 25 seconds of data (23.6 seconds pre-crash and 1.6
seconds post-crash) on five separate data elements, at a frequency of 5
data points per second (5 Hz).\28\ This includes all three required
Table I elements and two optional Table II elements. We are seeking
comment on the need and practicability of increasing the pre-crash
recording duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ NHTSA, Special Crash Investigation No. IN10013. https://crashviewer.nhtsa.dot.gov/nass-sci/GetBinary.aspx?Report&ReportID=804261920&CaseID=804261915&Version=-1.

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

B. Pre-Crash EDR Recording Frequency

    The current Table I in part 563 requires an EDR to capture pre-
crash data at a sample rate of 2 samples per second (Hz). The same
sample rate applies to Table II elements of engine revolutions per
minute (RPM), anti-lock braking system (ABS) status, electronic
stability control (ESC) status and steering input. Generally, 5 seconds
worth of pre-crash event data at 2 Hz sampling rate has been sufficient
for the agency's crash investigators to better understand the vehicle
speed and driver inputs prior to the event. However, from the agency's
experience investigating allegations of unintended acceleration, NHTSA
identified a need for the agency to consider improving the pre-crash
data sample rate. Increasing the sampling rate in addition to the pre-
crash recording duration, will be critical in determining crash
causation.
    NHTSA believes that increasing the EDR sampling frequency would
provide the agency with a more detailed representation of pre-crash
actions because in some crash circumstances, 2 Hz may be insufficient
to identify crash causation factors and lead to misinterpretation of
the data. For example, NHTSA is concerned that it is possible for rapid
vehicle control inputs (e.g., brake application and release or rapid
reversals in steering input of less than 0.5 seconds,) to be completely
missed by an EDR that records data at 2 Hz. Thus, although more crash
causation information will be captured with the 20 second time
duration, there is a concern that it could be misinterpreted without a
refinement in acquisition frequency. An improved data sampling rate is
also needed because of how fast the sequence of events leading to
crashes can happen and how fast the vehicle's systems need to activate,
such as the activations of crash avoidance technologies (e.g., Anti-
lock Braking System, and Electronic Stability Control). The current
sampling rate is well below the timing necessary to understand the
performance and effectiveness of such systems.
    In addition, the EDR output for the pre-crash data elements are not
synchronized,\29\ even at the sampling rate of 2 Hz, which could result
in uncertainty when it becomes necessary to compare the data at
specific points in time with precision. A greater sampling rate for the
pre-crash data elements would reduce the potential uncertainty related
to the relative timing of data elements, specifically for correlating
the driver's commands and the vehicle's performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The individual data elements collected from various sensors
and modules may be running at different clock and processor speeds,
and when recorded by the EDR during an event, they may not be
precisely timed. A greater sampling rate for the pre-crash data
elements can reduce the potential uncertainty related to the
relative timing of data elements, specifically for correlating the
driver's commands and the vehicle's performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, at least one vehicle manufacturer (Honda) has begun to
voluntarily collect EDR data on the status and operation of advanced
driver assistance systems, like the activation of forward crash warning
alerts, automatic emergency braking activations, and similar lane
keeping assist technologies. Generally, manufacturers have adopted the
sampling rate used for pre-crash data elements that are voluntarily
recorded by the EDR. An improved sampling rate of 10 Hz will provide
the resolution to understand the real-world performance and
effectiveness of these advanced crash avoidance systems that is not
currently possible with the current 2 Hz sampling rate and non-
synchronized data collection. The combination of manufacturers'
voluntary integration of advanced driver assistance system data
elements and the increased sampling frequency would provide valuable
insight on the performance of new technologies.
    We believe a 10 Hz pre-crash recording frequency is feasible. We
are aware of 10 Hz pre-crash recordings for steering angle and
electronic stability control as far back as 2010.\30\ 2012 EDRs in
Chrysler vehicles recorded all Table I data elements and 5 Table II
elements at 10 Hz.\31\ \32\ Also pointing to the practicability and
appropriateness of 10 Hz sampling are statements of vehicle
manufacturers and suppliers made to Virginia Tech researchers during
the 2011-2013 timeframe (EDR Technology Study).\33\ When asked about
near-term plans for EDR designs, these manufacturers and suppliers
stated, ``Higher sampling frequency and longer recording interval for
pre-crash data, i.e., sampling frequency better than 1/10 of a
second.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ NASS CDS Case 2010-82-045. EDR download FTP site: https://www.nhtsa.gov/node/97996/2921. Download nass2010.zip.
    \31\ DOT HS 812 929, Pg. 18.
    \32\ NASS CDS Case 2012-12-075. EDR download FTP site: https://www.nhtsa.gov/node/97996/2921. Download nass2012.zip.
    \33\ Five vehicle manufacturers and three suppliers were
interviewed as part of the study.
    \34\ DOT HS 812 929, Pg. 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the increased recording duration, we welcome comments on
the need and practicability of increasing the sampling rate.

C. Benefits

    Based on the EDR Duration Study findings, the current 5 second EDR
pre-crash recording duration did not capture the initiation of pre-
crash braking and steering maneuvers in a substantial percentage of
cases. The proposed increased recording time for the pre-crash data
would help ensure that data on the initiation of pre-crash actions and
maneuvers are captured for most crashes. This increased data will
enhance the usefulness of the recorded information and potentially lead
to further improvements in the safety of current and future vehicles.
    The increase in data recording frequency will clarify the
interpretation of recorded pre-crash information. Specifically, this
proposed refinement in acquisition frequency can capture rapid vehicle
control inputs (e.g., brake application and release or rapid reversals
in steering input of less than 0.5 seconds) and activation of crash
avoidance technologies that would otherwise be completely missed in the
data stream under the current 2 Hz frequency sampling rate.
Furthermore, without the increase in the data recording frequency, even
with the proposed 20 second duration, crash investigators and
researchers could still misinterpret the recorded data.
    As discussed in past EDR rulemaking notices, EDR data improve crash
investigations and crash data collection quality to assist safety
researchers, vehicle manufacturers, and the agency to understand
vehicle crashes better and to help determine crash causation.\35\
Similarly, vehicle manufacturers can utilize EDR data in improving
vehicle designs and developing more effective vehicle safety
countermeasures. In addition, the data can be used, by the vehicle
manufacturers or the agency, to assess whether the vehicle was
operating properly at the time of the event, or to help detect
undesirable operations. For example, as discussed previously in Section
II.A, the Toyota unintended acceleration study \36\ served as
affirmation of the significant value that EDR pre-crash data can have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Even though crash investigators gather insightful
information about the dynamics of crashes, some parameters cannot be
determined or cannot be as accurately measured (such as the change
in velocity) by traditional post-crash investigation procedures,
such as visually examining and evaluating physical evidence, e.g.,
the crash-involved vehicles and skid marks.
    \36\ NHTSA Report No. NHTSA-NVS-2011-ETC, ``Technical Assessment
of Toyota electronic Throttle Control (ETC) Systems,'' January 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDR data can also aid in the improvement of existing safety
standards and the development of new

ones. For example, the requirement for EDRs to record parameters of
advanced restraint systems during an event of interest could help
industry and the agency monitor the real-world performance of these
systems and detect injury trends. As a result, vehicle manufacturers
could more quickly improve advanced restraint systems and other
occupant protection countermeasures. The agency would promulgate the
necessary vehicle standards to further protect vehicle occupants. An
increasing number of vehicles in the fleet today have advanced safety
technologies, including advanced driver assistance system technologies.
We anticipate that a better understanding of driver pre-crash behavior
may assist in the evaluation of these emerging crash avoidance systems
(e.g., lane departure warning, lane keeping assist, forward collision
avoidance, automatic emergency braking, and intersection safety
assistance systems).

D. Costs

    Increasing the recording time of the pre-crash data would improve
the current part 563 data collection requirements, but could add
additional cost for increased memory if there is little or no excess
memory in the module. Another study on EDRs recently published by the
agency (referred to throughout this document as the EDR Technologies
Study) reported from information provided by industry that a typical
recorded event requires about 2 kilobytes (Kb) of memory depending on
the manufacturer.\37\ Information from manufacturers also indicated
that the typical microprocessor used in vehicle applications, in
approximately the 2013 timeframe, had 32 Kb or 64 Kb of flash data as
part of the air bag control module (ACM) and that only a fraction of
the memory is dedicated to the EDR data. This study also estimated the
total memory usage for all Table I \38\ and Table II \39\ data elements
recorded for the minimum duration and frequency requirements in part
563. It reported that to record Table I and II data elements would
require 0.072 Kb and 0.858 Kb of memory storage, respectively.\40\ This
would represent the baseline memory, both required (0.072 Kb) and
optional (0.858 Kb), needed for complying with part 563 and would
account for only about 1.45 percent [0.93/64] of a 64 Kb
microprocessor's memory and 2.9 percent [0.93/32] of a 32 Kb
microprocessor's memory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ DOT HS 812 929, Pg. 23.
    \38\ See Table 20 in DOT HS 812 929.
    \39\ See Table 21 in DOT HS 812 929.
    \40\ There are 3 data elements in Table I and 4 in Table II that
are frequency based. We assume 1 Byte of memory for each data sample
(11 Bytes for each data element). This results in 33 and 44 Bytes of
frequency-based data in Tables I and II, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The table below specifies the Table I and II pre-crash data element
memory usage under the current regulation (baseline memory) as well as
the proposed increase in pre-crash recording duration from 5 seconds to
20 seconds with no change in the 2 Hz frequency and the second scenario
is an increase in recording frequency from 2 Hz to 10 Hz, for a 20
second duration. The pre-crash duration-only increase requires 0.21 Kb
[1.14 Kb-0.93 Kb] of additional memory (a factor of 1.23 increase from
the baseline).\41\ 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 (a factor of 2.43
increase from the baseline).\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The frequency-based pre-crash data are assumed to increase
from 11 to 41 Bytes per data element, based on a factor of 4
increase in duration.
    \42\ The frequency-based pre-crash data are assumed to increase
from 11 to 201 Bytes per data element, based on a factor of 4
increase in duration and a factor of 5 increase in recording
frequency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EDR Technologies Study reported that the cost of flash memory
(the type that could be used to permanently store an EDR image) was
0.000072 $/Kb (0.072 [cent]/megabyte (Mb)) in 2013, with the projection
of a drop to .00003 $/Kb (0.03 [cent]/Mb) by 2020. Cost estimates from
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) for flash
memory for commercial vehicle data recorders from 2005 gave a memory
cost at $0.002/Kb (200 [cent]/Mb).\43\ This estimate is more than 15
years old and likely overestimates current EDR memory cost.
Nonetheless, if we use this conservative estimate, the cost of
additional memory needed for 20 seconds of pre-crash data collected at
10 Hz would be $.003 [$.002/Kb x (2.26-0.93) Kb] per vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Kreeb, R.M. and B.T. Nicosia (2005). ``Vehicle Data
Recorders,'' (FMCSA-PSV-06-001). Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Washington, DC.

                                                         Table 3--Pre-Crash Element Memory Usage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Pre-crash elements                           Required EDR memory (Kb)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Configuration                                          Frequency                                                       Increase
                                                             Duration          (Hz)           Table I        Table II          Total          factor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Regulation......................................               5               2           0.072           0.858           0.930  ..............
Duration Increase.......................................              20               2           0.162           1.019           1.140            1.23
Duration and Frequency Increase.........................              20              10           0.642           1.819           2.260            2.43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the EDR Technology Study, the typical microprocessor
used in vehicle applications for the ACM had 32Kb or 64Kb of flash
data. The baseline EDR Table I and II data elements only represent
about 1.45 percent of a 64 Kb microprocessor's memory and 2.9 percent
of a 32 Kb microprocessor's memory. Increasing the duration to 20
seconds and frequency to 10 Hz would utilize 3.5 percent [2.26/64] of a
64 Kb microprocessor's memory and 7.06 percent [2.26/32] of a 32 Kb
microprocessor's memory.
    Given how slight the proposed increase in memory would be, the
agency believes that memory changes needed to accommodate the added EDR
data storage can be incorporated into the existing or planned memory
design in vehicles.\44\ NHTSA believes that in most cases the amount of
additional memory necessary to comply with the proposed requirements
would be less than the unused memory on a vehicle's ACM chip. In such
cases, there should be zero increase in memory cost. The rare exception
to this would be a situation where an ACM is at its full memory usage
(i.e., due to the collection of optional data elements) that does not
have a few percent of memory to spare. In this situation, it is
possible that there could be an additional cost to move to

a larger chip.\45\ Vehicle manufacturers could alternatively reduce the
number of optional Table II data elements being recorded, until such
time that the ACM chip is being enlarged for other reasons. We seek
comment on whether current EDRs will need to increase their memory
capacity or change the memory implementation strategy (i.e., short term
memory buffer verse long-term storage) to meet the new requirements. We
also seek comment on our cost estimates and whether our assumptions are
accurate. Are there other costs (e.g., redesign for a larger unit,
additional capacity for Random-Access Memory (RAM), etc.),\46\ or other
factors we need to consider?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Specifically, more memory and faster processors are
critical to the performance of advanced driver assistance systems
(ADAS), highly automated driving functions, and other electronic
subsystems (such infotainment, navigation, communication) in
vehicles.
    \45\ In this situation, there could be an additional cost to
move to a larger chip. According to the EDR Technologies Study
reported that the cost of flash memory (the type that could be used
to permanently store an EDR image) was 0.00072 $/megabyte (Mb) in
2013, with the projection of a drop to 0.0004 $/Mb by 2017.
    \46\ An internet search for automotive grade microprocessor
chips with 64 Kb and 128 Kb flash memory capacity indicate that they
also had 4 Kb of available Static Random-Access Memory (SRAM)
integrated with the chip. SRAM is a popular choice for volatile
storage because of its speed, reliability, low-power consumption and
low cost (e.g., ideal for applications involving continuous data
transfer, buffering, data logging, audio, video and other math- and
data-intensive functions). https://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/en/AT90CAN64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we do not anticipate there being any additional processor
speed or backup power needs associated with the proposed greater
recording duration and frequency increase. As found in the EDR
Technologies Study, more than a decade ago at least one vehicle
manufacturer was recording 20 seconds of data at 5 Hz. Since that time,
manufacturers may have improved the processing speed of their ACM in
order to handle additional crash deployable components, such as
ejection mitigation curtains. Thus, the proposed changes would not be
expected to burden the speed of the processor. Nonetheless, we seek
comment on the potential impact on the ACM processor and associated
cost.

E. Lead Time

    We are proposing an effective date of the first September 1st one
year from the publication of the final rule. For example, if the final
rule is published on October 1, 2022, the effective date is September
1, 2024. The agency estimates that 99.5 percent of model year 2021
passenger cars and other vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg or less have
part 563-compliant EDRs. As discussed in the cost section, the agency
believes that increasing the required pre-crash data recording time
will not require any additional hardware or substantial redesign of the
EDR or the vehicle and will likely only require minimal software
changes. With that in mind, the agency believes a year of lead time is
reasonable. Comments are requested on this proposed lead time.

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    We have considered the potential impact of this proposed rule under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Order 2100.6A.
This NPRM is nonsignificant under E.O. 12866 and was not reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget. It is also not considered ``of
special note to the Department'' under DOT Order 2100.6A, Rulemaking
and Guidance Procedures.
    As discussed in this NPRM, the additional pre-crash data that would
be collected by EDRs under the proposed rule would be valuable for the
advancement of vehicle safety by enhancing and facilitating crash
investigations, the evaluation of safety countermeasures, advanced
restraint and safety countermeasure research and development, and
certain safety defect investigations. Improvements in vehicle safety
could occur indirectly from the collection of these data.
    We estimate that about that 99.5 percent of model year 2021
passenger cars and other vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg or less are
already equipped with part 563-compliant EDRs. As discussed in the
above section on the cost impacts of this NPRM, the agency believes
that no additional hardware would be required by the proposed amendment
and that the compliance costs would be negligible, and we are seeking
comment on the costs of the proposed rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it 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 governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)(1)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the proposed or final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA
amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a proposed
or final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This action proposes minor amendments to 49 CFR part 563, Event
Data Recorders (EDRs) to extend the recording period for pre-crash
elements in voluntarily installed EDRs from 5 seconds of pre-crash data
at a frequency of 2 Hz to 20 seconds of pre-crash data at a frequency
of 10 Hz. The proposed rule applies to vehicle manufacturers who
produce light vehicles with a GVWR not greater than 3,855 kg (8,500
pounds) and voluntarily install EDRs in their vehicles. It also applies
to final-stage manufacturers and alterers. NHTSA analyzed current small
manufacturers in detail in the accompanying Preliminary Regulatory
Evaluation (PRE) \47\ and found that none of the entities listed in the
analysis would be impacted by this proposal. If adopted, the proposal
would directly affect 20 single stage motor vehicle manufacturers.\48\
None of these are qualified as small business. However, NHTSA analyzed
current small manufacturers, multistage manufacturers, and alterers
that currently have part 563 compliant EDRs and found that 13 motor
vehicle manufacturers affected by this proposal would qualify as small
businesses. While these 13 motor vehicle manufacturers qualify as small
businesses, none of them would be significantly affected by this
rulemaking for several reasons. First, vehicles that contain EDRs are
already required to comply with part 563. This proposed rule would not
require hardware changes, but would require adjusting the recording
time and sampling rate for up to seven pre-crash data elements. The
agency believes current or planned systems are capable of accommodating
these changes. Additionally, NHTSA believes the market for the vehicle
products of the 13 small vehicle manufacturers is highly inelastic,
meaning that purchasers of their products are enticed by the desire to

have a highly customized vehicle. Generally, under this circumstance,
if any price increase, the price of competitor's models will also need
to be raised by a similar amount, since all light vehicles must comply
with the standards. Therefore, any reasonable price increase will not
have any effect on sales of these vehicles. Thus, I hereby certify that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Additional details related to the
basis of this finding can be found in the PRE for this rulemaking
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The PRE is available in the same docket as this proposal.
    \48\ BMW, Fiat/Chrysler (Ferrari and Maserati), Ford, Geely
(Volvo), General Motors, Honda (Acura), Hyundai, Kia, Lotus, Mazda,
Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Nissan (Infiniti), Porsche, Subaru, Suzuki,
Tata (Jaguar and Land Rover), Tesla, Toyota (Lexus), and Volkswagen/
Audi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Order 13132

    NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concludes that no
additional consultation with states, local governments or their
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. This NPRM
proposes minor technical amendments to an already existing
regulation.\49\ When 49 CFR part 563 was promulgated in 2006, NHTSA
explained its view that any state laws or regulations that would
require or prohibit the types of EDRs addressed by part 563, or that
would affect their design or operations, would create a conflict and
therefore be preempted. As a result, regarding this NPRM, NHTSA does
not believe there are current state laws or regulations for EDRs that
conflict with part 563 or with the overall minor change to capture time
proposed by this document. Further, the amendments proposed by this
NPRM are directed by the FAST Act, which directs NHTSA to conduct a
study to determine the amount of time EDRs should capture and record
data to provide sufficient information for crash investigators, and
conduct a rulemaking based on this study to establish the appropriate
recording period in part 563. NHTSA conducted an EDR Duration Study and
submitted a Report to Congress summarizing the results of this study in
September 2018. This NPRM initiates the rulemaking mandated by the FAST
Act. To the extent there are state laws with different capture times
than that proposed by this NPRM, Congress made the determination in the
FAST Act that the capture time required by part 563 should be extended.
NHTSA is issuing this NPRM in accordance with that statutory mandate.
NHTSA requests stakeholder input on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    When promulgating a regulation, Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that the agency must make every reasonable effort to ensure
that the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language
the preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard,
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship of regulations.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this proposed rule is discussed above in connection with E.O.
13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that
individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other
administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation)

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

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. This NPRM proposes requirements that relate to an
information collection that is subject to the PRA, but the proposed
requirements are not expected to increase the burden associated with
the information collection. NHTSA is currently in the process of
seeking approval for OMB for the information collection. In compliance
with the requirements of the PRA, NHTSA published a notice in the
Federal Register on August 26, 2021 (86 FR 47719), seeking public
comment and providing a 60-day comment period. NHTSA has now followed
up with a second notice, published a notice on March 17, 2022 (87 FR
15302), announcing that the agency is submitting the information
collection request to OMB for approval.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as SAE International (SAE).
The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards. The NTTAA requires agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in lieu of government-unique standards except where
inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical.
    There are several consensus standards related to EDRs, most notably
those standards published by SAE (J1698--

Event Data Recorder) and Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) (Standard 1616, IEEE Standard for Motor Vehicle Event
Data Recorder). NHTSA carefully considered the consensus standards
applicable to EDR data elements in establishing part 563. Consensus
standards for recording time/intervals, data sample rates, data
retrieval, data reliability, data range, accuracy and precision, and
EDR crash survivability were evaluated by NHTSA and adopted when
appropriate. The FAST Act directed NHTSA to conduct a study to
determine the amount of time EDRs should capture and record pre-crash
data to provide sufficient information for crash investigators, and to
conduct a rulemaking based on this study to establish the appropriate
recording period in NHTSA's EDR regulation. NHTSA conducted the EDR
Duration Study and submitted a Report to Congress summarizing the
results of this study in September 2018. This particular rulemaking
exceeds the pre-crash data recording durations of the SAE and IEEE
standards (i.e., SAE and IEEE recommend recording 8 seconds of pre-
crash data) based upon the new information obtained from the EDR
Duration Study. The results of the study on EDR recording duration
suggest that the recommended recording duration by these standards
would not capture the initiation of crash avoidance maneuvers. NHTSA
declines to adopt the voluntary consensus standards for the pre-crash
recording because such a decision would be inconsistent with the best
available information to the agency and conflict with the outcome of a
study required by the FAST Act.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product
price deflator for the year 2020 results in $158 million (113.625/
71.868 = 1.581). Before promulgating a rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the
agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the agency to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an
explanation of why that alternative was not adopted.
    This NPRM would not result in expenditures by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in
excess of $158 million (in 2020 dollars) annually. As a result, the
requirements of Section 202 of the Act do not apply.

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

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

Executive Order 13211

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

Privacy

    The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, sec. 208, 116
Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct
a Privacy Impact Assessment when they develop or procure new
information technology involving the collection, maintenance, or
dissemination of information in identifiable form or they make
substantial changes to existing information technology that manages
information in identifiable form. A PIA is an analysis of how
information in identifiable form is collected, stored, protected,
shared, and managed. The purpose of a PIA is to demonstrate that system
owners and developers have incorporated privacy protections throughout
the entire life cycle of a system.
    The Agency submitted a Privacy Threshold Analysis analyzing this
rulemaking to the DOT, Office of the Secretary's Privacy Office (DOT
Privacy Office). The DOT Privacy Office has tentatively determined that
this rulemaking does not create privacy risk because no new or
substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or
disseminate information in an identifiable form because of this
proposed rule. Even so, the Agency requests comment on this
determination.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    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 in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Proposed Regulatory Text

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 563

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

    In consideration of the forgoing, NHTSA is proposing to amend 49
CFR part 563 as follows:

PART 563--EVENT DATA RECORDERS

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

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

0
2. Revise Sec.  563.3 to read as follows:

Sec.  563.3   Application.

    This part applies to the following vehicles manufactured on or
after [the first September 1st one year after publication of final
rule], if they are equipped with an event data recorder: passenger
cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 3,855 kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 pounds) or less, except for
walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to
the U.S. Postal Service. This part also applies to manufacturers of
those vehicles. However, vehicles manufactured before September 1,
2013, that are manufactured in two or more stages or that are altered
(within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) after having been previously
certified to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in
accordance with part 567 of this chapter need not meet the requirements
of this part.
0
3. In Sec.  563.7, revise Table I in paragraph (a) and Table II in
paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  563.7   Data elements.

    (a) * * *

  Table I--Data Elements Required for All Vehicles Equipped With an EDR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Recording
                                 interval/time \1\    Data sample rate
          Data element           (relative to time  (samples per second)
                                       zero)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta-V, longitudinal..........  0 to 250 ms or 0                    100
                                  to End of Event
                                  Time plus 30 ms,
                                  whichever is
                                  shorter.
Maximum delta-V, longitudinal..  0-300 ms or 0 to                    N/A
                                  End of Event
                                  Time plus 30 ms,
                                  whichever is
                                  shorter.
Time, maximum delta-V..........  0-300 ms or 0 to                    N/A
                                  End of Event
                                  Time plus 30 ms,
                                  whichever is
                                  shorter.
Speed, vehicle indicated.......  -20.0 to 0 sec...                    10
Engine throttle, % full (or      -20.0 to 0 sec...                    10
 accelerator pedal, % full).
Service brake, on/off..........  -20.0 to 0 sec...                    10
Ignition cycle, crash..........  -1.0 sec.........                   N/A
Ignition cycle, download.......  At time of                          N/A
                                  download \3\.
Safety belt status, driver.....  -1.0 sec.........                   N/A
Frontal air bag warning lamp,    -1.0 sec.........                   N/A
 on/off \2\.
Frontal air bag deployment,      Event............                   N/A
 time to deploy, in the case of
 a single stage air bag, or
 time to first stage
 deployment, in the case of a
 multi-stage air bag, driver.
Frontal air bag deployment,      Event............                   N/A
 time to deploy, in the case of
 a single stage air bag, or
 time to first stage
 deployment, in the case of a
 multi-stage air bag, right
 front passenger.
Multi-event, number of event...  Event............                   N/A
Time from event 1 to 2.........  As needed........                   N/A
Complete file recorded (yes,     Following other                     N/A
 no).                             data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

    (b) * * *

                Table II--Data Elements Required for Vehicles Under Specified Minimum Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Recording interval/time
           Data element name             Condition for requirement    \1\  (relative to time    Data sample rate
                                                                              zero)               (per 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, maximum delta-V, resultant.......  If recorded..............  0-300 ms, or 0 to End of                 N/A
                                                                     Event Time plus 30 ms,
                                                                     whichever is shorter.

Engine RPM.............................  If recorded..............  -20.0 to 0 sec...........                 10
Vehicle roll angle.....................  If recorded..............  -1.0 up to 5.0 sec \3\...                 10
ABS activity (engaged, non-engaged)....  If recorded..............  -20.0 to 0 sec...........                 10
Stability control (on, off, engaged)...  If recorded..............  -20.0 to 0 sec...........                 10
Steering input.........................  If recorded..............  -20.0 to 0 sec...........                 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         If recorded..............  Event....................                N/A
 deploy, driver.
Side air bag deployment, time to         If recorded..............  Event....................                N/A
 deploy, right front passenger.
Side curtain/tube air bag deployment,    If recorded..............  Event....................                N/A
 time to deploy, driver side.
Side curtain/tube air bag deployment,    If recorded..............  Event....................                N/A
 time to deploy, right side.
Pretensioner deployment, time to 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
 right front passenger.
Occupant size classification, driver...  If recorded..............  -1.0 sec.................                N/A
Occupant size classification, right      If recorded..............  -1.0 sec.................                N/A
 front passenger.
Occupant position classification,        If recorded..............  -1.0 sec.................                N/A
 driver.
Occupant position classification, 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 are recorded in non-volatile memory for the purpose of subsequent
  downloading.
\3\ ``Vehicle roll angle'' may be recorded in any time duration -1.0 to 5.0 seconds is suggested.
\4\ List this element n-1 times, once for each stage of a multi-stage air bag system.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.8.
Steven S. Cliff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-12860 Filed 6-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 34395]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14812]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13704-002; Project No. 13701-002; Project No. 13703-002;
Project No. 13702-002]

Notice of Technical Meeting; FFP Missouri 2, LLC

    a. Project Names and Numbers: From upstream to downstream,
Arkabutla Lake Hydroelectric Project No. 13704, Sardis Lake
Hydroelectric Project No. 13701, Enid Lake Hydroelectric Project No.
13703, and Grenada Lake Hydroelectric Project No. 13702.
    b. Date and Time of Meeting: June 23, 2015; at 2:00 p.m. Eastern
Time (1:00 p.m. Central Time)
    c. Place: Telephone conference with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) and Rye Development, LLC, on behalf of FFP Missouri
2, LLC.
    d. FERC Contact: Jeanne Edwards at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
(202) 502-6181.
    e. Purpose of Meeting: To discuss the comments filed by the Corps
on May 12, 2015 concerning the operations of the proposed projects
listed above.
    f. A summary of the meeting will be prepared and filed in the
Commission's public file for the projects.
    g. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other
interested parties are invited to participate by telephone. Please
contact Jeanne Edwards at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>,
by close of business Friday, June 19, 2015, to R.S.V.P. and receive
specific instructions on how to participate.

    Dated: June 8, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-14812 Filed 6-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P