Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation H-02-035
Details
Synopsis: This recommendation addresses the lack of standards for recording time and status information for the faults stored in electronic control units (ECUs). The recommendation is derived from the Safety Board’s investigation of the December 21, 1999, motorcoach run-offthe-road accident near Canon City, Colorado,1 and is consistent with the evidence found and the analysis performed. As a result of this investigation, the Safety Board has issued three safety recommendations, one of which is addressed to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the Society of Automotive Engineers. Information supporting this recommendation is discussed below. The Safety Board would appreciate a response from you within 90 days addressing the actions you have taken or intend to take to implement our recommendation.
Recommendation: TO THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS AND THE SOCIETY OF AUTOMATIVE ENGINEERS: Work together, as part of your initiative to establish on-board vehicle recorder standards, to develop standards for brake and transmission electronic control units that require those units to store a full history of electronic fault codes that are time stamped using a recognized clock synchronized with other on-board event data recording devices.
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Open - Unacceptable Response
Mode: Highway
Location: Canon City, CO, United States
Is Reiterated: No
Is Hazmat: No
Is NPRM: No
Accident #: HWY-00-FH-011
Accident Reports:
Report #: HAB-02-19
Accident Date: 12/21/1999
Issue Date: 12/19/2002
Date Closed:
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. (Closed - Unacceptable Action)
SAE International (Open - Unacceptable Response)
Keyword(s): Recorders

Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB
To: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc.
Date: 5/2/2008
Response: During our investigation of the Canon City, Colorado, motorcoach accident, Safety Board investigators discovered that the fault codes stored in both the antilock brake system (ABS) ECU and the transmission ECU were not time stamped, and the ABS ECU faults lacked status indication. As a result, the Board issued Safety Recommendation H-02-35 with the intent of having a standard developed that would allow the capture of a more comprehensive account of events leading up to a crash, providing improved diagnostic and investigative tools. The Board is disappointed to learn that work on Project IEEE 1616-2004 has ceased and the IEEE 1616 working group has no plans to develop an amendment to establish standards for on-board event data recording devices. Accordingly, Safety Recommendation H-02-35 is classified CLOSED -- UNACCEPTABLE ACTION.

From: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc.
To: NTSB
Date: 11/14/2007
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 11/26/2007 1:23:54 PM MC# 2070693: - Judith Gorman, Managing Director: Thank you for your correspondence regarding Safety Recommendation H-02-35 and the request for an update. I was asked by Executive Director Jeffry Raynes to reply, given that the information sought resides within the Standards Association, which I head as Managing Director. In an earlier communication, IEEE reported that a Project Authorization Request (PAR) to initiate an amendment to Project IEEE 1616-2004 was to be submitted to the IEEE-SA Standards Board for approval. Although that PAR was indeed approved in 2004, work to develop the amendment based on your recommendations, unfortunately, has not taken place. Nearly all standards work within the IEEE originates from and is driven by a grass roots volunteer dynamic, with a significant pool of technical experts working in the IEEE technical society structure. In the case of the PAR to amend IEEE 1616, it has become apparent that there is an absence of interest in the relevant technical group, and, in fact, all activities within the IEEE 1616 working group have ceased. Therefore we regretfully must inform you that this amendment will not be developed at this time or in the foreseeable future.

From: NTSB
To: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc.
Date: 8/8/2007
Response: NMC# 103095: The Safety Board last received a response from the IEEE regarding this recommendation in November 2003. At that time, the IEEE planned to submit a project authorization request at its March 2004 meeting to amend project P1616 to develop a standard for brake and transmission electronic control units that would require those units to store a full history of electronic fault codes, time-stamped by a recognized clock synchronized with other on-board event data recording devices. The Safety Board is interested in knowing whether and how its recommendations are implemented, both to ensure that the traveling public is provided the highest level of safety, and to identify creative solutions that might be shared with others. That is why we monitor the implementation of our recommendations. Please inform us of what further action, if any, has been taken or planned to implement Safety Recommendation H-02-35 since the November 2003 letter. Copies of our December 19, 2002, letter issuing the recommendation and previous correspondence are enclosed for your review. The full report of the Canon City, Colorado, accident is available on our Web site at www.ntsb.gov. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

From: NTSB
To: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc.
Date: 3/2/2004
Response: The Safety Board is pleased that the IEEE will submit a project authorization request at their March 2004 meeting to amend project P1616. The goal of the amendment, P1616a, will be to develop a standard for brake and transmission electronic control units that requires those units to store a full history of electronic fault codes that are time-stamped by a recognized clock synchronized with other on-board event data recording devices. Passing this amendment will add important new material to the existing IEEE standard, and help to ensure that the intent of this safety recommendation is met. Pending further updates and completion of this initiative, Safety Recommendation H-02-35 is classified OPEN -- ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc.
To: NTSB
Date: 11/7/2003
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 11/13/2003 3:51:11 PM MC# 2030553 - From Daniel J. Senese, Executive Director: IEEE P1616 is scheduled to go to sponsor ballot late this year. In light of this fact and to avoid delay of the standard, Tom Kowalick and Dennis Bodson (respectively, chair of P 1616 and chair of the IEEE Vehicular Technology Society, which sponsors P 1616) have determined that Recommendation H-02-35 is best considered as an amendment to P1616. As you may know, an amendment is a document that adds new material to an existing IEEE standard. Our plan of action is to submit a Project Authorization Request (PAR) for approval at the March 2004 IEEE Standards Association Standards Board meeting to. Amend the P1616 document. It will be assigned project number P1616a. It will be approved and published separately from P1616. Eventually, when the entire document is revised, the amendment will be merged into the: published document. The goal of P1616a will be to develop a standard for brake and transmission electronic control units, requiring those units to store a full history of electronic fault codes that are time-stamped by a recognized clock synchronized with other on-board event data recording devices. We hope for PAR approval in March 2004, followed by an initial meeting in May 2004, launching the formal' consensus-setting ballot in June 2005, an final approval in December 2005 IEEE remains open to the possibility of working with SAE: We have offered to initiate a liaison relationship between P1616 and J1698, the related SAE effort. Currently, SAE leadership does not think this would be useful. They do understand that our offer remains open. SAE has been very cooperative in sharing copyrighted documentation that P1616 requested for standards development purposes, and we appreciate their support. Your offer to brief the working group on the accident that prompted the recommendations would be most helpful in the development of P1616a. Tom Kowalick wilI contact Joe Osterman as suggested to set the briefing, once the project has been approved and the meetings planned.

From: NTSB
To: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc.
Date: 8/14/2003
Response: The Safety Board notes that the IEEE has forwarded the safety recommendation to the P1616 working group, which is developing the standard for motor vehicle event data recorders (VDR) for technical consideration. We also note that the IEEE and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) will be working together on their related projects with the intent of issuing one standard. We commend you for this cooperation. The Safety Board would appreciate it if you or Mr. Kowalick, the P1616 working group chair, would provide a status report following the technical consideration of Safety Recommendation H-02-35 by the working group, as well as the timeline planned for the project. Pending incorporation of time-synchronized brake and transmission control unit data into the overall VDR standard and completion of that standard, Safety Recommendation H-02-35 is classified OPEN -- ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE. The Safety Board would be pleased to brief the working group on the accident that prompted these recommendations. If that would be helpful, please contact Mr. Joe Osterman, Director, Office of Highway Safety, at (202) 314-6440.

From: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc.
To: NTSB
Date: 5/27/2003
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 6/4/2003 3:41:14 PM MC# 2030269 - From Daniel J. Senese, Executive Director: IEEE reports that it does have a current project, P1616, underway for establishing standards for motor vehicle event data recorder. The recommendation was forwarded to that Working Group Chair. They also report that SAE has an ongoing project in this arena and they hope the two will complement each other and result in one standard.

From: NTSB
To: SAE International
Date: 7/9/2013
Response: We support the SAE’s development of Recommended Practice J2728, which includes an extensive list of data elements that can be used in accident reconstruction, and we are encouraged that the SAE continues to monitor technological developments and user requirements that would allow further development of standards for on-board vehicle recorders. However, we are disappointed that the SAE does not have any immediate plans to implement the recommended synchronizing standard. Because of the age of this recommendation and the lack of any plans for its imminent completion, Safety Recommendation H-02-35 is classified OPEN—UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE. We urge the SAE to move forward with the development of the recommended standard.

From: SAE International
To: NTSB
Date: 4/15/2013
Response: -From Jack Pokrzywa, Director, SAE Ground Vehicle Standards: As noted in your letter, in June 2010, SAE published Recommended Practice (RP) J2872, Heavy Vehicle Event Data Recorder (HVEDR) Standard - Tier 1. SAE is proud of the outstanding efforts of the group of technical industry expert volunteers who make up the SAE J2728 HVEDR Committee. They began work on this project in October 2004, based on a request by the SAE Truck and Bus Council to its Truck and Bus Electrical/Electronics Committee to: ? Establish common data elements and definitions for commercial vehicle (>10,000 GVWR) event data recording ? Specify event triggers and threshold levels ? Recommend data imaging methods ? Leverage existing SAE Recommended Practices and standards ? Take into consideration current vehicle electronic systems architectures (i.e., “legacy” vehicles) without limiting future advancements Early in their deliberations, the Subcommittee determined that to adequately address the needs of manufacturers and EDR data users, heavy vehicle event data recorders (HVEDRs) should be categorized in three levels in terms of their functionality and complexity: ? Tier 1 – Specifies a minimum set of requirements for a recording device to be qualified as an SAE J2728 HVEDR. It contains a list of HVEDR data elements, data imaging protocols, data file format, and event trigger specifications. ? Tier 2 – Will be published at a future date a will supplement the Tier 1 HVEDR minimum requirements by adding additional data elements that are defined in accordance with the J1939 and J1587 data bus architectures, and thus are non-proprietary in nature. • Tier 3 – Will also be published at a future date and will further supplement the Tier 1 and Tier 2 HVEDR requirements by adding proprietary data components (data not defined in accordance with J1939 or J1587). The Committee that developed the Tier 1 document included a diverse group of technical experts including crash reconstruction specialists, truck manufacturer and electronics component supplier technical experts, motor carrier operators, and academic road safety researchers. The Committee roster also included Liaisons from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The main goal of the J2728 Committee was the development of a set of minimum HVEDR specifications that would enable a thorough and detailed reconstruction of a heavy vehicle’s operating state at the time an event1 is recorded. Technology has advanced significantly since Recommendation H-02-35 was issued, and while SAE Recommended Practice J2728 does not include recording fault codes among the many distributed component-level ECU’s that may be installed on the vehicle, it does include an extensive list of data element variables (including brake system and transmission state conditions) upon which a very detailed crash reconstruction can be made. Principal among these data elements are: • Safety Restraint System (SRS) Trigger - Any vehicle airbag or other active passenger restraint system is deployed (if installed and reporting to the SAE J1587 and/or SAE J1939 vehicle communications networks). The SRS trigger event start will be the time the HVEDR receives the SRS message.VIN Cruise Control States Vehicle Configuration Engine Hours ABS Retarder Status Engine Retarder Percent Torque ABS Brake Control Status – Tractor Engine Retarder Status ABS Warning Lamp Status - Tractor Engine Speed ABS Brake Control Status – Trailer Transmission Gear ABS Warning Lamp Status – Trailer Two Speed Axle Switch (Axle range indication) Accelerator Pedal Position Total Vehicle Distance (odometer equivalent) Brake Status – Parking Vehicle Speed Sensor Brake Status – Service ABS Wheel Based Vehicle Speed Clutch Switch (Depressed or not) Rear-Axle Ratio Cruise Control Active Tire Size Cruise Control Set Speed 1 The HVEDR must save an event record if any of the following sets of conditions occur: • Acceleration Trigger - Vehicle speed changes at a rate higher than the programmable threshold set between 8.0 km/h/s (5.0 mph/s) and 22.5 km/h/s (14.0 mph/s). The Vehicle Speed change can be either positive or negative, and persists beyond that threshold for at least 0.5s. The acceleration event start will be the time that the threshold is crossed. The recommended default threshold setting is 11 .3 km/h/s (7.0 mph/s). • Last Stop Trigger - Vehicle speed falls below 3.0 km/h (1.9 mph) for 15 s or more. The last stop event start will be the time the threshold is crossed. To prevent last stop events from being overwritten due to the movement of the vehicle after an incident of interest, the last stop trigger cannot reoccur until the vehicle speed reaches a speed of 24 .0 km/h (14 9 mph) or more for a minimum of 6 s. The act of turning the ignition off will not directly trigger a last stop event. Specifically, the following comments address the NTSB’s Recommendation H-02-35 to store a full history of electronic fault codes that are time stamped using a recognized clock synchronized with other on-board event data recording devices. • The principal goal for SAE Recommended Practice J2728-1 was to define a device and interface standard that could be retrofit onto existing vehicles without modifying existing engine, transmission, and brake control system devices. • Creation of a standard that would add a device requirement for real time clocks, integrated within devices to record time stamps on key faults, would not have met the principal goal of a retrofit capable device, because adding a real time clock, and modifying existing ECU software to use the real time clock data is a highly complex activity, and many vehicles would be likely incapable of being retrofit with a real time clock for the purpose of adding time stamps to their existing fault logging capabilities. • SAE standards development is a voluntary, consensus based process and by SAE and ANSI policy, SAE cannot dictate standard content. The NTSB’s Recommendation H-02-35 was considered but there was no interest to pursue a real time record for individual device faults from the J2728 Committee members, which included representatives from truck manufacturers, suppliers, academia and government agencies. • The viability of SAE Recommended Practice J2728 for its intended use to guide the implementation of HD EDR devices should be decoupled from the presence or absence of real time clock data for existing ECU fault information, as a key factor in determining the utility of J2728 for improving accident reconstruction for HD Vehicles. • There is real time recording of incident data in the J2728-1 standard which includes the indicator for ABS system faults, which will indicate whether an ABS system was capable of sustaining the lateral stability of the vehicle as it is required to do under FMVSS 121. The ABS system will typically provide individual wheel speeds which should assist in reconstructing the attitude of the vehicle prior to the triggering event. • At this time there is no agreed upon standard for precise real time clock time-stamping. GPS, cellular, and radio broadcast based clocks each have their own issues with accuracy, accessibility, reliability and “dead zones”. • Issues related to storage of fault codes in ABS and transmission ECU’s, including “active”/”inactive” fault codes and number of saved fault codes would have to be synchronized with some time standard such as engine hours, to provide a common timeframe for determining what faults were present and for how long prior to the event. • Presently there is no standard for providing ToD information for ABS and transmission faults. Neither SAE J1939-73, SAE J 1979-DA, nor ISO 14229-1 define data link messages where prior faults are paired with ToD clock values. ??Technical issues related to network latency and message prioritization need to be resolved to insure reliable and accurate time synchronization of all ECU’s. As technology and user requirements evolve, the SAE Truck and Bus Event Data Recorder Committee will reconsider including recording of fault codes and time stamps into future revisions and enhancements of J2728. Additionally, SAE will request the Truck and Bus Council, which oversees all heavy truck related standards activities, to evaluate the state of technology relating to time stamping and fault codes to gauge whether there is interest from the various effected committees in pursuing standards development that address the NTSB’s Safety Recommendation H-0-35. SAE would also like to extend an invitation to the NTSB to attend a future Truck and Bus Council meeting to discuss this topic directly with key stakeholders.

From: NTSB
To: SAE International
Date: 1/10/2011
Response: CC# 201000383 The last letter from the SAE to the NTSB regarding this recommendation, which we received in October 2003, advised us that the SAE’s Vehicle Event Data Interface Committee had developed a recommended practice for event data recorders on light-duty vehicles, SAE J1698. Accordingly, the NTSB classified Safety Recommendation H-02-35 “Open—Acceptable Response” pending further update regarding progress made to establish on-board recorder standards and the development of brake and transmission electronic control units synchronized with other on-board recording devices. Because the NTSB had received no further information about SAE actions to address these issues, we again requested an update in August 2007. To date, we have received no additional information. The NTSB is aware that, in June 2010, the SAE issued recommended practice J2728; however, that document does not include information about the synchronization of recorded data, which the NTSB suggests (at a minimum) record the vehicle’s last trip. Accordingly, the NTSB would appreciate learning what action the SAE intends to take to address this shortcoming. In view of the age of this recommendation and the SAE’s apparent inaction to address the issues involved, Safety Recommendation H-02-35 is classified OPEN -- UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE. Should the SAE fail to provide us a timely response outlining its plan or actions taken to address this recommendation, the NTSB will have no choice but to close the recommendation in an unacceptable status.

From: NTSB
To: SAE International
Date: 8/8/2007
Response: NMC# 103096: The Safety Board last received a response from the SAE regarding this recommendation in October 2003. At that time, the SAE Vehicle Event Data Interface Committee had developed a recommended practice for event data recorders on light-duty vehicles, SAE J1698. Although a standard for heavy-duty vehicles had not yet been developed, the SAE indicated that the Board’s recommendation would be considered in subsequent document revisions to reflect changing vehicle architectures and data collection practices. The Safety Board is interested in knowing whether and how its recommendations are implemented, both to ensure that the traveling public is provided the highest level of safety, and to identify creative solutions that might be shared with others. That is why we monitor the implementation of our recommendations. Please inform us of what further action, if any, has been taken or planned to implement Safety Recommendation H-02-35 since the October 2003 letter. Copies of our December 19, 2002, letter issuing the recommendation and previous correspondence are enclosed for your review. The full report of the Canon City, Colorado, accident is available on our Web site at www.ntsb.gov. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

From: NTSB
To: SAE International
Date: 3/19/2004
Response: The Safety Board notes that although the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has not developed an event data recorder (EDR) standard or recommended practice for heavy-duty vehicles, your Vehicle Event Data Interface (VEDI) Committee has developed a recommended practice for EDRs on light-duty vehicles, SAE J1698. The Board appreciates your efforts, and as EDR technology continues to develop, the Board encourages the SAE to work with the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers on EDR technology for heavy-duty vehicles. Pending future reports on progress made to establish on-board vehicle recorder standards and to develop standards for brake and transmission electronic control units that are synchronized with other on-board event data recording devices, Safety Recommendation H-02-35 is classified OPEN -- ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: SAE International
To: NTSB
Date: 10/2/2003
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 11/5/2003 8:08:51 AM MC# 2030533 - From Jack Pokrzywa, Manager, Ground Vehicle Standards: It should be noted that the SAE does not issue "requirements" in the strict sense of this word, but rather issues voluntary "Standards" and "Recommended Practices" that reflect the consensus of interested members regarding a given technical subject. Notwithstanding this clarification, we understand the NTSB’s recommendation to reflect a desire to see the issues raised in the subject letter addressed by an SAE Standard or Recommended Practice. Currently, SAE is not developing an EDR Standard or Recommended Practice for heavy-duty vehicles, and therefore is not in a position to comment on the implications of the subject recommendation for such vehicles. However, the SAE Vehicle Event Data Interface (VEDI) Committee has developed a Recommended Practice for EDRs on light-duty vehicles, SAE Ji 698, and is in the process of developing another Recommended Practice specifically addressing a download protocol. We have opted to classify both documents as Recommended Practices rather than as Standards in recognition of the fact that EDR technology is still developing and there is therefore a lack of adequate consensus to support a Standard at this time. The current scope & purpose statements for J1698 is as follows: 1. Scope 1.1 Scope This recommended practice aims to establish a common format for displaying and presenting crash-related data recorded and stored within certain electronic components currently installed in many light-duty vehicles. This recommended practice pertains only to the post-download format of such data and is not intended to standardize the format of the data stored within any on-board storage unit, or to standardize the method of data recording, storing, or extraction. Historically, crash data recording technology in light-duty vehicles has developed and evolved based on differing technical needs of manufacturers and their customers without industry standards or government regulation. As a result, wide variations currently exist among vehicle manufacturers regarding the scope and extent of recorded data. For this reason, this recommended practice is not intended to standardize or mandate the recording of any specific data element or to specify a minimum data set. Rather, it is intended to be a compilation of data elements and parameters that various manufacturers are currently recording, as well as those elements reasonably predicted to be recorded in the foreseeable future, and to establish a common format for display and presentation of that data so recorded. This version of the recommended practice is limited in application to vehicular data recorded in single frontal impact events with a Delta-V of 6.4 km/h (4 mph) or greater. Provisions for multiple-impact events may be included in the next version. Side-impact and rollover events may be addressed at a later time. 1.1.1 Limitation and Justification of Scope 1.1.1.1 Post-Download vs. Pre-Download Formatting The scope of this version of recommended practice is deliberately restricted to providing post-download formatting guidelines, only. This restriction is to avoid imposing constraints on the type of data recorded, the method of gathering and storing data, and the pre- and/or post-processing of data that may be used by various vehicle/device manufacturers as a matter of proprietary design. This recommended practice suggests, in essence, if a manufacturer implements event data recording as defined by the scope of this document, then it ought to make a copy of the recorded data available in a generic format that enables comparative use of the data by any interested entity that has permission to access it. As noted above, vehicle event recording is a fairly new automotive feature for which there is a variety of applicable uses and implementation strategies in existence. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the current nascent state of the technology precludes competent assessment of available options necessary to identify an optimal solution. The Committee further recognized that, given the still-questionable social acceptability of on-board data recording devices, it also lacks the appropriate authority to effectively set a policy on such devices, and has therefore avoided specific recommendations concerning whether event data recorders should be equipped on motor vehicles, and whether, when implemented, a particular type, quantity, and manner of data collection should be used. 1.1.1.2 Single Frontal Impact Events vs. Multiple Frontal Impact and Non-Frontal Impact Events The current version of the subject recommended practice specifies that an "event" for the purposes of this document is defined as a single frontal impact resulting in a change in velocity of more than one half mile per hour in a 20 millisecond time period. This threshold approximately correlates with the threshold used by most airbag firing algorithms for "wake-up" purposes (i.e., for the purposes of beginning the sequence of acceleration-based calculations that may lead to the firing of one or more pyrotechnical restraint device). It was chosen because light-duty manufacturers already equip motor vehicles with deployable restraints triggered by frontal impacts, and the technology used to do so is mature, and therefore fairly similar among manufacturers. Due to a variety of recording strategies, some events may not result in recorded data. The threshold for recording event data is left to the discretion of manufacturers. In the next version of this document, provisions for multiple frontal events may be included. During subsequent reviews, provisions for non-frontal impact events may be added if the state of technological maturity supports a common definition for such events. 1.2 Purpose Vehicular event data recording and extraction has several potential uses. These include diagnostic and operational information of the on-board occupant protection system, crash reconstruction, and improved highway safety. Collection of various types of data for a variety of commercial and non-commercial uses is of significant interest of many entities, most of which are not mentioned in the statement of the Purpose. A standard format for vehicle event data output will help facilitate these uses, and possibly more, by improving the availability and efficient use of the extracted data. The judgment on the appropriateness of any particular use of recorded data is beyond the scope and purpose of this recommended practice therefore the Committee passes no judgment on that issue. Current light-duty vehicle electrical/electronic architecture does not typically support real-time data recording and synchronization capability. Because the focus of this effort is on light-duty vehicles, only, the data parameters and collection strategies considered have been tailored to the prevailing technology and vehicle architecture common to this platform. As noted in the Scope and Purpose statements above, the SAE effort has carefully limited its focus to codifying a common output format for data already collected by vehicle manufacturers, or under consideration for recording in the foreseeable future. Specifying real-time recording and synchronization parameters would amount to ".. .imposing constraints on the type of data recorded, the method of gathering and storing data, and the pre- and/or post-processing of data that may be used by various vehicle/device manufacturers as a matter of proprietary design" in contradiction to the scope of J1698 (see section 1 .l .l .l , above). The SAE VEDI Committee has therefore decided not to address the subject NTSB recommendation in the current version of the Recommended Practice J1698. However, we will retain the recommendation in our Committee files and consider it in the future as this document is revised over time to reflect changing vehicle architectures and data collection practices. If you would like to obtain more technical details regarding SAE’s efforts in the vehicle Vehicular Event Data Interface, please contact me at 248-273-2460.

From: NTSB
To: SAE International
Date: 8/28/2003
Response: NMC# 102257: Although we have received no reply from the SAE regarding action to address this recommendation, the Safety Board is aware of your efforts to work with the IEEE. The IEEE has advised the Board that its working group is addressing the recommendation by developing a standard for motor vehicle event data recorders. The Board notes the IEEE's intention to coordinate with the SAE to issue one standard that will be used by both organizations. In addition to the information provided by the IEEE, the Safety Board is interested in receiving updates from the SAE. Specifically, we are interested in the SAE's progress and participation with the IEEE. We would appreciate being informed of the specific actions taken in response to this recommendation, and the timeline planned for your project. We look forward to the completion of the standard. In the interim, Safety Recommendation H-02-35 is classified OPEN -- ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.