Home Page About Us Contribute




Escort, Inc.



Tweets by @CrittendenAuto






By accessing/using The Crittenden Automotive Library/CarsAndRacingStuff.com, you signify your agreement with the Terms of Use on our Legal Information page. Our Privacy Policy is also available there.

Event Data Recorders

American Government Special Collections Reference Desk

American Government

Event Data Recorders

David L. Strickland
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
August 9, 2012


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47552-47557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19580]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 563

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0099]
RIN 2127-AL14


Event Data Recorders

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: On August 5, 2011, the agency published a final rule amending 
the requirements for voluntarily installed event data recorders (EDRs) 
established in August 2006. In response to the August 2011 final rule, 
the agency received three petitions for reconsideration from the 
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Automotive Safety Council, 
and Honda Motor Co., LTD. The Association of Global Automakers, Inc. 
Technical Affairs Committee, and Nissan North America, Inc. both 
submitted comments in support of the petitioners' requests. After 
careful consideration, the agency is granting some aspects of the 
petitions, and denying others. This document amends the final rule 
accordingly.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments in this rule are effective 
October 9, 2012.
    Compliance Dates: Except as provided below, light vehicles 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2012 that are equipped with an 
EDR and manufacturers of those vehicles must comply with this rule. 
However, vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages or that 
are altered are not required to comply with the rule until September 1, 
2013. Voluntary compliance is permitted before that date.
    Petitions: If you wish to submit a petition for reconsideration of 
this rule, your petition must be received by September 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, 4th 
Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Please see the Privacy Act heading under 
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy issues, 
contact:
    David Sutula, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-112. 
Telephone: (202) 366-3273. Facsimile: (202) 366-7002.
    For legal issues, contact: David Jasinski, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, NCC-112. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Facsimile: (202) 366-3820.
Both persons may be reached by mail at the following address: National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West 
Building, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 47553]]

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
III. Analysis and Agency Decision
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    In August 2006, NHTSA issued a final rule \1\ amending 49 CFR part 
563 (Part 563) to establish uniform performance requirements for the 
accuracy, collection, storage, survivability, and retrievability of 
onboard motor vehicle crash EDRs voluntarily installed in light 
passenger vehicles. Specifically, the regulation applies to 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,\2\ that are 
voluntarily equipped with an EDR. The 2006 final rule aimed to 
standardize the data obtained through EDRs so that such data would 
provide information to enhance the agency's understanding of crash 
events and safety system performance, thereby potentially contributing 
to safer vehicle designs and more effective safety regulations. The 
2006 final rule was intended to be technology-neutral, so as to permit 
compliance with any available EDR technology that meets the specified 
performance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 71 FR 50998.
    \2\ Walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles designed to be sold 
exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service are excluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 14, 2008,\3\ the agency responded to petitions for 
reconsideration on the August 2006 final rule, and made the following 
amendments to Part 563:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 73 FR 2168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Clarified the event storage definitions to alleviate any 
uncertainties in multiple event crashes;
     Revised certain sensor ranges and accuracies to reflect 
current state of the art technologies;
     Clarified the recorded data reporting format;
     Specified vehicle storage conditions during compliance 
testing;
     Clarified the required data elements and scope of covered 
sensors; and
     Revised the effective date to provide sufficient time for 
manufacturers and suppliers to comply with the rule.

The agency made these changes to encourage a broad application of EDR 
technologies in motor vehicles and maximize the usefulness of EDR data 
for vehicle designers, researchers, and the medical community, without 
imposing unnecessary burdens or deterring future improvements to EDRs 
that have been voluntarily installed. The 2008 final rule also provided 
two additional years of lead time to provide manufacturers more time to 
implement the necessary changes to EDR architectures within their 
normal product development cycles.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NHTSA issued a Federal Register notice on February 8, 2008 
(73 FR 8408) to correct the placement of decimal points for data in 
Table II of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 5, 2011,\5\ the agency published a final rule responding 
to three petitions for reconsideration and made the following 
clarifications and amendments to Part 563:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 76 FR 47478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Removed the required standardization of the reporting 
requirements for all acceleration data requirements to address 
certification issues with data clipping, filtering and phase-shifting;
     Clarified the application of sensor tolerances to within 
the range of the applicable sensor;
     Clarified our position regarding exclusion of peripheral 
sensors from the reporting requirements for EDRs;
     Clarified the event storage definition to alleviate 
uncertainties in multiple event crashes;
     Revised requirements for the capture of event data in 
crashes that:

    [cir] Involve side or side curtain/tube air bags such that EDR data 
would only need to be locked if the vehicle also captures lateral 
delta-V data, and
    [cir] Involve non-reversible deployable restraints other than 
frontal, side or side/curtain tube air bags such that EDR data would 
not need to be locked at the option of the manufacturer,
     Clarified that any non-reversible deployable restraint may 
serve as an event trigger;
     Revised the minimum range requirement for the ``Steering 
input'' data element from an angular basis to a percentage basis; and
     Made other minor technical and editorial corrections.
    In response to the 2011 final rule, the agency received three 
petitions for reconsideration \6\ from the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers (Alliance), the Automotive Safety Council \7\ (ASC), and 
Honda Motor Co., LTD (Honda). The Association of Global Automakers, 
Inc. Technical Affairs Committee (GAM), and Nissan North America, Inc. 
(Nissan) both submitted comments in support of the petitioners' 
requests. After careful consideration, the agency is granting some 
aspects of the petitions, and denying others. This document amends the 
final rule accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Docket number: NHTSA-2011-0106.
    \7\ Formerly the ASC was known as the Automotive Occupant 
Restraints Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

A. Steering Input

    Based on a petition for reconsideration from Bosch, the 2011 final 
rule modified the format and range of the steering input data element 
in Table III from a range of -250 degrees clockwise (CW) to 250 degrees 
counterclockwise (CCW) with a resolution specification of 1 percent to 
a percentage of the lock-to-lock steering wheel angle of  
100 percent with a 1 percent range. The Alliance and Honda petitioned 
the agency to revert the range specification to the original range of -
250 degrees clockwise (CW) to 250 degrees counterclockwise (CCW) with a 
resolution specification of 5 degrees. In its petition the Alliance 
stated that steering wheel angle sensors report the actual steering 
wheel angle in degrees. In order for the EDR to report the steering 
input in percent, the EDR module would need to have information about 
the vehicle's total lock-to-lock steering wheel angle capability. 
However, the total lock-to-lock steering wheel angle may vary not only 
from one vehicle model to another, but also within a vehicle trim line.
    The Alliance added that the same vehicle trim line with a different 
suspension package or gear box also might have a different total lock-
to-lock angle and each vehicle line would need to be specifically 
calibrated in order for the EDR to report steering input as a 
percentage based on that vehicle's steering wheel rotation capability. 
The Alliance went on to state that implementing the new EDR requirement 
to report steering input in percent would impose an unnecessary complex 
proliferation of EDR calibrations to match vehicle builds.
    Honda noted that in addition to the variability both between and 
within vehicle trim lines, steering angle sensors simply detect and 
display the actual rotation angle of the steering wheel and do not 
detect if the steering wheel is in the locked position. Honda stated 
that it could not report steering input as a percentage value without 
drastic changes to vehicle steering system design and incorporation of 
new steering angle sensors. Both Nissan and GAM submitted comments in 
support of the Alliance and Honda petitions to reinstate the original 
input range to -250 degrees CW to 250 degrees CCW with a resolution 
specification of 5 degrees.

[[Page 47554]]

    Bosch has submitted a letter in support of the Honda and Alliance 
petitions for reconsideration expressing its agreement with the 
petitioners' arguments.\8\ In its letter and in an ex-parte meeting 
with the agency, Bosch reiterated the other petitioners' concerns that 
the data element change may require additional calibration and software 
changes. It noted that the majority of electronic stability control 
(ESC) systems utilize steering input information in degrees, not 
percentages. It stated that manufacturers may not have enough time to 
implement this change, and as a result may have to remove the steering 
wheel angle data from the EDR log.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SAE International (SAE) submitted to the 2011 final rule docket 
what they described as a technical amendment to the steering input 
parameter. Its submission supports a return to the reporting of a 
 250 degrees steering wheel angle. However, it indicated 
that the sign convention for the direction of rotation should be 
reversed such that it should be reported as 250 degrees CW to -250 
degrees CCW. It indicated that a CW positive sign is consistent with a 
Z axis down (into the steering wheel) philosophy explained in SAE 
Recommended Practice J670, ``Vehicle Dynamics Terminology,'' and well 
as the philosophy being used to update the EDR parameter definitions in 
SAE Recommended Practice J1698-1, ``Event Data Recorder--Output Data 
Definition.''
    Finally, SAE additionally requested that the accuracy of this data 
element be modified from  5 percent to the larger of  5 degrees or  5 percent of the reading. SAE stated 
that this change would add clarity to the accuracy specification while 
assuring that it is not too small for small steering angles.

B. Data Clipping Flag

    All three petitioners requested that the agency consider delaying 
the requirement that an EDR must flag the first occurrence of input 
that saturates or clips the sensor. The Alliance and Honda agreed with 
the agency's intention to record the timing of when the design range of 
a sensor is exceeded. However, each petitioner commented that it would 
be too difficult to complete the necessary system programming within 
the 12-month interval between the August 5, 2011 final rule and the 
September 1, 2012 effective date of Part 563. Honda requested the 
agency delay this requirement for 1 year, while the Alliance and GAM 
requested a 2-year delay.
    Honda stated that given the extensive ramifications of a software 
modification, they investigated the feasibility of detecting the time 
of a data clipping occurrence through the data retrieval tool. They 
stated that the result of this investigation indicated that it is not 
feasible to accurately capture the time of data clipping due to the low 
frequency in which the EDR records the data that is available for 
imaging by the tool (100 Hz).

C. End of Event Time

    The Alliance commented that the revisions to the ``End of event 
time'' definition to be based on the resultant vehicle delta-V will 
affect both the data reporting requirements and the capture and storage 
requirements for EDRs. The ASC noted that this change could require a 
real-time calculation to determine when the resultant has been met 
under all conditions. Both the Alliance and the ASC noted that this may 
result in changes to the EDR software and require evaluation prior to 
implementation. Honda noted that certain strategies would determine the 
end of event when both the lateral and the longitudinal delta-V fall 
below the 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) limit. In this case, the end of event 
determined by the EDR algorithm may be marginally earlier than 
specified in Part 563. The Alliance and Honda proposed that the agency 
consider revising the end of event definition as follows:

    End of event time means the moment at which (1) the cumulative 
longitudinal delta-V within a 20 ms time period becomes 0.8 km/h 
(0.5 mph) or less, and (2) for vehicles that record ``delta-V 
lateral'', the cumulative lateral delta-V within a 20 ms time period 
becomes 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) or less, or (3) the crash detection 
algorithm of the air bag control unit resets.

    The GAM supported both the Alliance and Honda petitions to make 
this change to the end of event time definition.

D. Occupant Size Classification

    Both the Alliance and Honda requested clarification on the 
revisions to the occupant size classifications definition. They stated 
that the current definition is misleading in that it may now include 
the 5th percentile female (as defined in 49 CFR part 572, subpart O) in 
the same category as an adult, particularly in the driver's designated 
seating position. The GAM supported the Alliance and Honda petitions. 
The petitioners requested that the agency clarify if, in fact, it 
intended to include 5th percentile females in the larger occupant 
category.

E. Non-Reversible Deployable Restraints

    The Alliance and ASC petitioned the agency to clarify the 
requirements for data capture by EDRs in events utilizing non-
reversible deployable restraints other than air bags. They stated their 
belief that the agency intended to allow capture and recording of 
deployments of devices such as pretensioners at the option of the 
manufacturer, but that the current regulatory text in 49 CFR 563.9(b) 
does not specify this optional nature. The ASC asked for clarification 
on whether or not such non-reversible restraint deployments would be 
required to be locked. The GAM supported the Alliance petition, and 
recommended that the agency adopt the Alliance proposal to codify the 
optional nature of non-air bag, non-reversible restraint deployments.

F. Multi Event Storage

    The ASC requested clarification on the locking of events involving 
side impact air bags. It commented that the regulatory text \9\ could 
be interpreted to mean that if a side impact deployment occurs first, 
it would be locked and a subsequent secondary frontal air bag 
deployment would not be recorded. It further suggested that this would 
not be in keeping with the agency's intent to record frontal air bag 
deployments. The GAM supported the ASC request for clarification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 49 CFR 563.9, Data capture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Technical Workshop

    Honda and GAM requested that the agency consider holding a 
technical workshop to ensure that all stakeholders are properly 
prepared to comply with Part 563 given the myriad complex issues and 
iterations of the regulation. GAM added that such an exchange would aid 
in resolving any additional technical issues in the most expeditious 
manner possible.

H. Compliance Test Procedures

    Honda, ASC, and GAM urged the agency to publish a compliance test 
procedure for Part 563 as soon as possible. Without a test procedure, 
they noted that it will be very difficult to maintain consistent and 
reliable compliance across the industry. The ASC added that NHTSA 
should harmonize the test procedure for Part 563 with the appropriate 
test procedures for the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 
recommended practices.

[[Page 47555]]

III. Analysis and Agency Decision

A. Steering Input

    Steering input with respect to Part 563 is an optional data element 
used to determine the driver's intent prior to a crash. In its petition 
for reconsideration of the 2008 final rule, Bosch commented that the 
Table III accuracy and resolution requirements for the steering input 
data element are inconsistent with other data elements. It recommended 
that the agency revise the range definition for this data element to 
 100 percent. In response, the agency revised the minimum 
range requirement for the ``Steering input'' data element from -250 
degrees CW to 250 degrees CCW to a value of  100 percent in 
Table III in the 2011 final rule. We stated we agreed with Bosch that 
this change would be more consistent with the accuracy and resolution 
requirements being expressed as percentages. We also believed the 
change would better address state-of-the-art active steering systems 
where the steering wheel angle and tire position may not correlate.
    In consideration of the Alliance and Honda petitions for 
reconsideration of the 2011 final rule on the issue of steering input 
and the supporting information subsequently provided by Bosch, we are 
now reverting back to the steering input data element range of -250 
degrees CW to 250 degrees CCW that was in the 2008 final rule. The 
change to the range made in the 2011 final rule was not intended to add 
unnecessary complexity to the vehicle's EDR. At the time of our earlier 
decision, we agreed with the need for desired consistency with other 
data elements (such as throttle and accelerator pedal position) and 
Bosch's petition for this change did not speak to the vehicle trim line 
implications and the complexities that would result.
    We are not making this change in response to comments suggesting 
that the rule would require drastic changes in steering design. We 
believe that the reporting of angle as a percentage of full lock to the 
tolerance required could be implemented by a software change in the 
download tool and knowledge of the full lock angle for the vehicle 
make/model.
    At the time of our analysis for the 2011 final rule, the majority 
of EDR data collected did not include steering input in the vehicle 
pre-crash data set. As a result, the agency had little practical 
experience with manufacturer plans for use of the voluntary steering 
input data element. However, after reviewing more recent EDR crash data 
where the pre-crash steering input was captured, we believe the 
original steering input range measured in degrees may be a more 
practical indicator. While the same information could be obtained from 
a percentage value, this would require knowledge of the number of 
degrees to fully lock in each direction. Rather, we believe it would be 
more convenient to crash investigators to have the degree information 
without having to seek out the additional information about the full 
lock angle from the vehicle manufacturer or other means. If an 
investigator wishes to know the angle as percentage of full lock, they 
can take the extra step to get the full lock angle and do the 
conversion.
    We note that no change was made based upon SAE's comments. We have 
considered their comments and suggested ``technical amendments.'' 
However, we do not believe the changes suggested by SAE could be 
considered technical amendments. In addition, the submission was 
received outside of the 45-day period for filing a petition for 
reconsideration. As such, we will treat it as a petition for rulemaking 
and will consider it under our plans for publishing an advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking in the near future to explore the potential for, 
and future utility of, capturing additional EDR data in light vehicles.

B. Data Clipping Flag

    We agree with Honda, the Alliance, ASC, and GAM that the data 
clipping flag requirement should be delayed by one year.
    In the 2011 final rule, the agency addressed the issue of data 
clipping that may occur during extreme crash events, or even for brief 
periods of time during crash testing, by revising footnote 1 of Table 
III to require manufacturers to report when sensors first exceed their 
design range. The 2011 final rule, however, left the manner by which 
the clipping is indicated up to the vehicle manufacturer and did not 
limit the potential methods for achieving this requirement. Instead, we 
provided the examples of a flag on the data trace, or an additional 
reported field indicating the timing of the clipping.
    The Alliance, ASC, and GAM both asserted that, although they were 
supportive of the data clipping flag requirement, that modifications, 
including new software, will be necessary in order to meet this 
requirement. The Alliance and GAM stated that an additional year is 
necessary to make these modifications. ASC requested that the data 
clipping requirement be delayed or eliminated until it can be properly 
studied. Honda indicated that the data retrieval tool cannot simply be 
reprogrammed to detect data clipping and report it. It further 
explained that the restraint control systems developed to properly 
operate the occupant restraint systems were not designed to capture the 
time at which the sensor inputs exceed their design range. It also 
stated that it is not feasible to accurately capture the saturation 
timing via a data retrieval tool because of the low sampling rate of 
the EDR.
    We agree with Honda, the Alliance, ASC, and GAM that modifications 
may be necessary to existing EDRs in order to meet the data clipping 
flag. In particular, Honda provided a reasoned explanation of the 
software modifications that would be necessary to comply with the data 
clipping flag requirement and why an additional year is necessary. 
Although we believe that it may be feasible to use the data retrieval 
tool to detect data clipping to a level of accuracy that would allow 
manufacturers to report delta-V with the required accuracy, we 
understand that the use of the data retrieval tool to flag the clipping 
may provide some short-term technical challenges. Therefore, we are 
providing one extra year of lead time for this particular requirement 
to give manufacturers additional flexibility.

C. End of Event Time

    We are denying the Alliance, ASC, and Honda petitions to reconsider 
amendments to the definition for an end of event. The petitioners state 
that the addition of ``resultant'' to the definition may marginally 
affect the determination of the end of an event. The Alliance and GAM 
noted that not all EDRs capture lateral delta-V and that those vehicles 
that do capture lateral delta-V may not currently calculate the 
resultant. They stated that calculating the resultant delta-V could 
necessitate additional software changes, delaying the ability of the 
manufacturers to comply with Part 563.
    The agency agrees that not all EDRs capture lateral delta-V. 
However, we note that in these cases, the resultant delta-V would 
simply be the longitudinal delta-V. For all other cases, we believe 
there is sufficient latitude in the definition for end of event for 
vehicle manufactures to institute an EDR strategy that meets the 
definition without undue burden. We note that manufacturers ultimately 
determine how the crash detection algorithm resets. Therefore, in cases 
where both lateral and longitudinal delta-V data are collected, 
manufacturers may opt to determine when the end of the event has 
occurred via the resultant cumulative delta-V, or via any method by 
which they choose to reset the crash

[[Page 47556]]

detection algorithm. In the worst case, the vehicle will need to 
capture the full 300 ms of delta-V data, which has been required by 
Part 563 since the 2006 final rule.

D. Occupant Size Classification

    We are denying the Honda and Alliance petitions to reconsider the 
occupant size classifications. Since the proposed rulemaking \10\ stage 
of Part 563, the agency has intended for the occupant size 
classification to be inclusive of the 5th percentile female as defined 
in 49 CFR part 572, subpart O. The revisions enacted in the 2011 final 
rule were simple clarifications to the original agency intent. We do 
not believe that there is a conflict with the resolution for this data 
element in Table III. Therefore, this data element will be used to 
report if the occupant in a designated seating position would meet the 
criteria of the 5th percentile female or larger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the 2004 Part 563 NPRM, the data element was ``Occupant 
size driver occupant 5th female size y/n.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Non-Reversible Deployment of Restraints

    We are denying the Alliance and ASC petitions to clarify how the 
deployment of non-reversible restraints other than air bags are 
recorded. We believe that section 563.9(b) is clear that when a memory 
buffer is available, EDRs must capture and record current event data 
that does not involve deployment of an air bag. If the memory buffers 
are full, manufacturers may either overwrite any previous data that 
does not involve deployment of an air bag, or not record the current 
event data if it does not involve deployment of an air bag. In this 
manner, manufacturers may prioritize the capture of events that do not 
involve deployments of air bags, but do deploy other non-reversible 
restraints regardless of type.

F. Multi-Event Storage

    In response to the ASC request for clarification on the locking of 
events involving side impact air bags, we agree that if a side impact 
deployment occurs first and the EDR records lateral delta-V, this event 
would need to be locked; however, a subsequent event (including the 
deployment of a frontal air bag) would not need to be recorded, but it 
could be allowed at the option of the manufacturer. We refer to the 
preambles of the previous rulemakings on the subject. Specifically, we 
stated the following in the preamble to the 2011 final rule.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 76 FR 47482.

    * * * ``In a side or side curtain/tube air bag deployment crash, 
where lateral delta-V is recorded by the EDR, capture and record the 
current deployment data. The memory for the air bag deployment event 
must be locked to prevent any future overwriting of the data.[lrquo] 
Thus, any frontal air bag deployment, or any side, or side curtain/
tube air bag deployment where lateral delta-V is recorded by the 
EDR, would not require the EDR to record a second, subsequent event, 
although it would allow such recording. We note that the phrase `up 
to two events' remains in Sec.  563.9(b) and so there continues to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
be an obligation to record multiple non-air bag deployment events.

G. Technical Workshop

    In response to the Honda and GAM request that the agency consider 
holding a technical workshop to ensure that all stakeholders are 
properly prepared to comply with Part 563, we do not believe that a 
technical workshop is needed at this time. We remain open to this 
possibility if the need presents itself in the future.

H. Compliance Test Procedures

    The agency is working with the SAE EDR committee to ensure that any 
compliance test procedure we produce would consider the SAE J1698 
Vehicle Event Data Interface recommended industry practices, as 
appropriate. The test procedure and accompanying documents will be 
provided in the docket \12\ for the 2011 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0106 at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' Executive 
Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' and the 
Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This 
rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget under those two Executive Orders. It has been determined not to 
be ``nonsignificant'' under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rule makes 
several technical changes to the regulatory text of 49 CFR part 563, 
and does not increase the regulatory burden of manufacturers. A 
complete statement of the costs and benefits of the introduction of 
Part 563 are available in the August 2006 final rule and the 
accompanying Final Regulatory Evaluation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 71 FR 51041; Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25666-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has discussed the relevant requirements of the Vehicle 
Safety Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13132 
(Federalism), Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), Executive 
Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Health and Safety Risks), the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and the National 
Environmental Policy Act in the August 2006 final rule cited above. 
Those discussions are not affected by these technical changes.

Privacy Act

    Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of 
all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 
19477-78), or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 563

    Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Regulatory Text

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 563 is amended 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 1.50.

0
2. In Sec.  563.8, revise Table III in paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  563.8  Data format.

    (a) * * *

[[Page 47557]]



                                     Table III--Reported Data Element Format
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Data element                    Minimum range             Accuracy \1\              Resolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lateral acceleration................  At option of              At option of             At option of
                                       manufacturer.             manufacturer.            manufacturer.
Longitudinal acceleration...........  At option of              At option of             At option of
                                       manufacturer.             manufacturer.            manufacturer.
Normal Acceleration.................  At option of              At option of             At option of
                                       manufacturer.             manufacturer.            manufacturer.
Longitudinal delta-V................  -100 km/h to +100 km/h..   10%.......  1 km/h.
Lateral delta-V.....................  -100 km/h to +100 km/h..   10%.......  1 km/h.
Maximum delta-V, longitudinal.......  -100 km/h to +100 km/h..   10%.......  1 km/h.
Maximum delta-V, lateral............  -100 km/h to +100 km/h..   10%.......  1 km/h.
Time, maximum delta-V, longitudinal.  0-300 ms, or 0-End of      3 ms......  2.5 ms.
                                       Event Time plus 30 ms,
                                       whichever is shorter.
Time, maximum delta-V, lateral......  0-300 ms, or 0-End of      3 ms......  2.5 ms.
                                       Event Time plus 30 ms,
                                       whichever is shorter.
Time, maximum delta-V, resultant....  0-300 ms, or 0-End of      3 ms......  2.5 ms.
                                       Event Time plus 30 ms,
                                       whichever is shorter.
Vehicle Roll Angle..................  -1080 deg to +1080 deg..   10%.......  10 deg.
Speed, vehicle indicated............  0 km/h to 200 km/h......   1 km/h....  1 km/h.
Engine throttle, percent full         0 to 100%...............   5%........  1%.
 (accelerator pedal percent full).
Engine rpm..........................  0 to 10,000 rpm.........   100 rpm...  100 rpm.
Service brake.......................  On or Off...............  N/A....................  On or Off.
ABS activity........................  On or Off...............  N/A....................  On or Off.
Stability control...................  On, Off, or Engaged.....  N/A....................  On, Off, or Engaged.
Steering input......................  -250 deg CW to + 250 deg   5%........   1%.
                                       CCW.
Ignition cycle, crash...............  0 to 60,000.............   1 cycle...  1 cycle.
Ignition cycle, download............  0 to 60,000.............   1 cycle...  1 cycle.
Safety belt status, driver..........  On or Off...............  N/A....................  On or Off.
Safety belt status, right front       On or Off...............  N/A....................  On or Off.
 passenger.
Frontal air bag warning lamp........  On or Off...............  N/A....................  On or Off.
Frontal air bag suppression switch    On, Off, or Auto........  N/A....................  On, Off, or Auto.
 status, right front passenger.
Frontal air bag deployment, time to   0 to 250 ms.............  ms.........  1 ms.
 deploy/first stage, driver.
Frontal air bag deployment, time to   0 to 250 ms.............   2 ms......  1 ms.
 deploy/first stage, right front
 passenger.
Frontal air bag deployment, time to   0 to 250 ms.............   2 ms......  1 ms.
 nth stage, driver.
Frontal air bag deployment, time to   0 to 250 ms.............   2 ms......  1 ms.
 nth stage, right front passenger.
Frontal air bag deployment, nth       Yes or No...............  N/A....................  Yes or No.
 stage disposal, driver.
Frontal air bag deployment, nth       Yes or No...............  N/A....................  Yes or No.
 stage disposal, right front
 passenger.
Side air bag deployment, time to      0 to 250 ms.............   2 ms......  1 ms.
 deploy, driver.
Side air bag deployment, time to      0 to 250 ms.............   2 ms......  1 ms.
 deploy, right front passenger.
Side curtain/tube air bag             0 to 250 ms.............   2 ms......  1 ms.
 deployment, time to deploy, driver
 side.
Side curtain/tube air bag             0 to 250 ms.............   2 ms......  1 ms.
 deployment, time to deploy, right
 side.
Pretensioner deployment, time to      0 to 250 ms.............   2 ms......  1 ms.
 fire, driver.
Pretensioner deployment, time to      0 to 250 ms.............   2 ms......  1 ms.
 fire, right front passenger.
Seat track position switch,           Yes or No...............  N/A....................  Yes or No.
 foremost, status, driver.
Seat track position switch,           Yes or No...............  N/A....................  Yes or No.
 foremost, status, right front
 passenger.
Occupant size classification, driver  5th percentile female or  N/A....................  Yes or No.
                                       larger.
Occupant size classification, right   Child...................  N/A....................  Yes or No.
 front passenger.
Occupant position classification,     Out of position.........  N/A....................  Yes or No.
 driver.
Occupant position classification,     Out of position.........  N/A....................  Yes or No.
 right front passenger.
Multi-event, number of event........  1 or 2..................  N/A....................  1 or 2.
Time from event 1 to 2..............  0 to 5.0 sec............  0.1 sec................  0.1 sec.
Complete file recorded..............  Yes or No...............  N/A....................  Yes or No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Accuracy requirement only applies within the range of the physical sensor. For vehicles manufactured after
  September 1, 2014, if measurements captured by a sensor exceed the design range of the sensor, the reported
  element must indicate when the measurement first exceeded the design range of the sensor.

* * * * *

    Issued on: July 19, 2012.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-19580 Filed 8-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

Connect with The Crittenden Automotive Library

The Crittenden Automotive Library at Google+ The Crittenden Automotive Library on Facebook The Crittenden Automotive Library on Instagram The Crittenden Automotive Library at The Internet Archive The Crittenden Automotive Library on Pinterest The Crittenden Automotive Library on Twitter The Crittenden Automotive Library on Tumblr
 


The Crittenden Automotive Library

Home Page    About Us    Contribute