[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60270-60271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29922]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 98-4672]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by
Price T. Bingham, a private individual. The petitioner requested that
the agency initiate rulemaking to require air bag sensors to be
designed so that data is recorded during a crash and can be read by
crash investigators. The agency agrees that the recording of crash data
from air bag sensors, as well as other vehicle sensors, can provide
information that is very valuable in understanding crashes. This
information can then be used in a variety of ways to improve motor
vehicle safety. The agency is denying the petition because the auto
industry is already voluntarily moving in the direction recommended by
the petitioner. Further, the agency believes this area presents some
issues that are, at least for the present time, best addressed in a
non-regulatory context.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. Clarke
Harper, Chief, Light Duty Vehicle Division, NPS-11, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2264. Fax: (202) 366-4329.
For legal issues: J. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-
3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking
from Price T. Bingham, a private individual. Mr. Bingham stated that
air bag sensors are capable of collecting and recording data that could
be extremely valuable to crash investigators. He stated his concern in
light of air bag deployments that might be ``spontaneous,'' but did not
limit his petition to that issue. The petitioner asked the agency to
initiate rulemaking to require manufacturers to design their air bag
sensors so that data are collected and recorded during a crash so that
they can be read by crash investigators.
[[Page 60271]]
NHTSA notes that the safety community in recent years has had
considerable interest in the concept of crash event recorders. Such
recorders can, in conjunction with the air bag and other sensors
already provided on many vehicles, collect and record a variety of
relevant crash data. These data include such things as vehicle speed,
belt use, and crash pulse.
The additional and more accurate data about crashes that could be
provided by crash event recorders would enable investigators to develop
a significantly better understanding of how and why crashes occur. This
information could then be used in a variety of ways to improve motor
vehicle safety, e.g., the information could be used to improve vehicle
designs, improve safety standards, and develop improved public
education campaigns.
A more immediate safety benefit can occur if the occurrence of a
crash is immediately and automatically communicated to local emergency
services, thereby shortening the response time of the correct emergency
services. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Research is currently
testing, in the Buffalo, New York area, an Automated Collision
Notification system that uses single point electronic crash sensors, a
global positioning system receiver and a cellular phone to facilitate
emergency services dispatch. This program has been the subject of
recent press articles, copies of which are being placed in the docket.
The agency notes that on June 10, 1997, the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) adopted a series of recommendations concerning air
bag safety and occupant restraint use which, among other things, called
on NHTSA and the vehicle manufacturers ``to develop and implement * * *
a plan to gather better information on crash pulses and other crash
parameters in actual crashes, utilizing current or augmented crash
sensing and recording devices.'' The recommendations followed a public
forum convened by the NTSB in March 1997.
Also, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in its April 1998 Advanced Air
Bag Technology Assessment, included a recommendation that NHTSA study
the feasibility of installing and obtaining crash data for safety
analyses from crash recorders on vehicles.
The auto industry is already beginning to voluntarily install crash
event recorders on some vehicles. For example, General Motors (GM) has
had crash event recorders on some of its vehicles for several years and
is planning to install more advanced systems in the future. NHTSA notes
that, as part of a recent investigation carried out by its Special
Crash Investigations program, it was able to use information obtained
from a GM vehicle equipped with a crash event recorder.
Persons who are interested in knowing more about GM's program for
crash event recorders may wish to read a recent article on that subject
that was published in the Detroit News. The agency is placing a copy of
that article in the docket. Also, at the agency's invitation, GM made a
presentation concerning its crash event recorders at NHTSA's September
17, 1998 quarterly meeting held to answer questions from the public and
the regulated industries regarding the agency's vehicle regulatory and
research program. Information presented by GM at this meeting is being
placed in the docket.
While NHTSA believes that crash event recorders have the potential
to provide valuable information for its vehicle regulatory program, the
agency believes that a rulemaking to require such recorders is not now
appropriate. First, as discussed above, the industry is already moving
to voluntarily provide such recorders. Second, as the development and
installation of these recorders, and decisions about what data should
be recorded and how they should be retrieved, are in their infancy,
NHTSA believes it is premature to consider regulating such devices.
Given this context, such a rulemaking would not appear to be a good use
of limited agency resources.
Moreover, there are a variety of issues related to the
implementation of crash event recorders that may be better addressed,
at least initially, outside the rulemaking context. In addition to
deciding what specific crash data to record, other issues include,
among other things, possible standardization of the means for
retrieving the data, access to the data by the agency and crash
investigators, and privacy issues.
The agency notes that the means for retrieving data from crash
event recorders is currently proprietary. This means that the
involvement of the vehicle manufacturer is necessary to retrieve the
data. NHTSA has not had any difficulty obtaining cooperation from
vehicle manufacturers to obtain data from crash event recorders. While
the retrieval of such data would be facilitated if the means for
retrieving it were standardized, a number of issues may need to be
addressed in order to achieve such standardization, e.g., analysis of
available alternative means for retrieval and consideration of privacy
and related issues.
NHTSA introduced the topic of crash event recorders (these devices
are also called event data recorders or EDRs) for action to the Motor
Vehicle Safety Research Advisory Committee (MVSRAC) during its April
29, 1998 meeting. MVSRAC consists of 16 members representing
governments, industry, academia, the medical community and public
interest groups and functions to advise NHTSA about complex technical
topics. MVSRAC approved setting up a working group on EDRs under the
Crashworthiness Subcommittee. The agency solicited names from the full
committee and subcommittee for nomination to work on the working group.
The first meeting of the working group took place in October, and
others are planned for next year.
NHTSA believes that the approach of relying on the efforts of
individual manufacturers to voluntarily introduce crash event
recorders, coupled by the work of the MVSRAC working group on this
subject, is the best way to proceed at this time. The involvement of
the MVSRAC working group will ensure that issues relating to the
implementation and use of crash event recorders receive the attention
of a wide variety of experts, and that the agency obtains the benefit
of hearing the views of those experts. Moreover, NHTSA will ensure that
MVSRAC considers topics of particular interest to the agency, including
access to the data by the agency.
For the reasons discussed above, the agency is denying Mr.
Bingham's petition for rulemaking.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: November 3, 1998.
James R. Hackney,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-29922 Filed 11-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
