Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP21-005, 18470-18471 [2022-06683]

Download as PDF khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 18470 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Notices Section 30118 of title 49 of the United States Code requires the manufacturer of motor vehicles or replacement equipment to notify NHTSA, owners, purchasers, and dealers of the safety defect or noncompliance. Section 30120 requires the manufacturer to remedy, without charge, the defect or noncompliance and specifies the ways in which a noncompliance or defect can be remedied. Sections 30118(e) and 30120(e) of title 49 specify that any interested person may petition the Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA by delegation) to hold a hearing to determine whether a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment has reasonably met its obligation to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of vehicles or equipment of a safety-related defect or noncompliance with a FMVSS in the manufacturer’s products and to remedy that defect or noncompliance. To implement these statutory provisions, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR part 557, Petitions for Hearings on Notification and Remedy of Defects. Part 557 establishes procedures for the submission and disposition of petitions for hearings on the issues of whether the manufacturer has reasonably met its obligation to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of safety-related defects or noncompliance, or to remedy such defect or noncompliance free of charge. Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the Information: Persons who believe that a manufacturer has been deficient in notifying owners, purchasers, or dealers of a safety related defect or noncompliance with FMVSS, or has not remedied the problem in accordance with statutory requirements, may petition the agency pursuant to 49 CFR part 557. The agency uses the information collected in the petition, and may use other information available to it, to determine whether a hearing is necessary to determine whether a manufacturer has reasonably met its obligation to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of the safety defect or noncompliance with FMVSS, or to remedy that defect or noncompliance. Should the agency, on the basis of information provided at that hearing or other information, determine the manufacturer has not reasonably met its obligations, the agency orders the manufacturer to take specified action to bring itself into compliance with those obligations. 60-Day Notice: A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting public comments on the following information collection was VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 29, 2022 Jkt 256001 published on January 18, 2022 (87 FR 2664). No comments were received. Affected Public: Businesses or other interested persons. Estimated Number of Respondents: 1 respondent. Frequency: On occasion. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1 hour. When NHTSA last sought approval for the extension of this information collection, the agency estimated it would receive one petition a year and estimated that, with an estimated one hour of preparation time for each petition, the total annual burden for this collection would be 1 hour. The agency now believes that a more accurate estimate would be 0 petitions and 0 burden hours each year, based on the agency not receiving of any such petitions submitted in recent years. However, NHTSA continues to estimate that the time to prepare a petition is 1 hour and, to account for the possibility of receiving a petition in a given year, NHTSA estimates the total annual burden of this collection to be 1 hour (1 petition × 1 hour to prepare). Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $7.95. NHTSA estimates that the only cost burden to respondents (i.e., petitioners) except for the time invested (opportunity cost) associated with the time to submit the petition will be postage costs. NHTSA estimates that each mailed response is estimated to cost $7.95 (priority flat rate envelope from USPS). Therefore, the total cost for the estimated 1 request per year is $7.95. Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29. Stephen Ridella, Director, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA. [FR Doc. 2022–06728 Filed 3–29–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0029] Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP21–005 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation. AGENCY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a petition submitted on September 27, 2021, by Mr. James Lamb to NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). The petition requests that the Agency initiate an investigation into alleged ‘‘defects in the 2006 J1939 databus,’’ citing a 2016 research paper published through the University of Michigan. On December 23, 2021, NHTSA opened Defect Petition DP21–005 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. After reviewing the information provided by the petitioner regarding the alleged defect and conducting searches of complaints from vehicle owners, operators, and fleet supervisors, NHTSA has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to warrant further action at this time. Accordingly, the Agency has denied the petition. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ryan Rahimpour, Medium and HeavyDuty Vehicle Defects Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–366–8756). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: 1.0 Introduction Pursuant to 49 CFR 552.1, interested persons may petition NHTSA requesting that the Agency initiate an investigation to determine whether a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment fails to comply with applicable motor vehicle safety standards or contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. 49 U.S.C. 30162; 49 CFR part 552. Upon receipt of a properly filed petition, the Agency conducts a technical review of the petition, material submitted with the petition, and any additional information. 49 U.S.C. 30162(c); 49 CFR E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM 30MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2022 / Notices 552.6. After the technical review and considering appropriate factors, which may include, among other factors, Agency priorities, and the likelihood of success in litigation that might arise from a determination of a noncompliance or a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the Agency will grant or deny the petition. 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); 49 CFR 552.8. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 2.0 Petition Mr. James Lamb (the petitioner), Executive Director of the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC), submitted a petition to NHTSA on September 27, 2021. The petition requested NHTSA to initiate a defect investigation into the potential hacking susceptibility of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1939 Data Bus standard. In support of the petition, the petitioner cited a 2016 study from University of Michigan (Michigan) researchers, entitled Truck Hacking: An Experimental Analysis of the SAE J1939 Standard, which alleges a SAE J1939 Data Bus vulnerability in a Model Year (MY) 2001 school bus and a MY 2006 Class-8 semi-tractor.1 The study alleges that, due to the vulnerability, vehicle critical safety functions such as the accelerator control or braking systems are susceptible to unauthorized access and control, increasing motor vehicle safety risks. The petition includes no other specification with respect to affected makes or models of vehicles with the alleged safety defect. 3.0 Analysis On December 23, 2021, ODI opened Defect Petition Investigation DP21–005 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. In evaluating the petition, ODI reviewed the cited University of Michigan study to understand and determine the scope and feasibility of the alleged defect and reviewed the NHTSA database for similar complaints. The petitioner did not specify the make and model of the vehicles with the alleged safety defect. The only categories of relevant subject vehicles specified were found in the Michigan study: MY 2001 school buses and MY 2006 Class-8 semi-tractors. After reviewing the available information and using ODI’s risk-based processes, ODI has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into the subject vehicles. The vehicle vulnerabilities reported in the Michigan study required physical access to the J1939 connector in order to affect vehicle critical safety functions such as the accelerator control or braking systems. Whether there is a potential for remote compromise is a factor that NHTSA has considered in evaluating the likelihood or frequency of a potential safety defect. The Michigan study did not demonstrate a remote compromise of these vehicles. In addition, based on the age of the subject model year school buses and semitractors, they do not have over-the-air software update capabilities or an internet connection to make remote compromise possible. ODI conducted a search for similar complaints received by the Agency and found no complaints of any type related to this alleged vulnerability, aside from the Petition. This evaluation included searches of complaints from vehicle owners, operators, and fleet supervisors. ODI has not found any similar events, complaints, or allegations suggesting a real-life vulnerability based on the available information. Therefore, given a thorough analysis of the potential for finding a safety-related defect in the subject vehicles, and in view of NHTSA’s enforcement priorities, a defects investigation is unlikely to result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists. 4.0 Conclusion NHTSA is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the Agency’s investigation shows a defect in the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9), 30118. Given that the existing information does not provide evidence of a real-life vulnerability in the alleged subject vehicles, caused by a vehiclebased defect, it is unlikely that an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect would be issued due to any investigation opened upon grant of this petition. Therefore, and upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. The denial of this petition does not foreclose the Agency from taking further action if warranted or making a future finding that a safetyrelated defect exists based upon additional information the Agency may receive. 1 Burakova, Y., Hass, B., Millar, L., Weimerskirch, A., (2016). Truck Hacking: An Experimental Analysis of the SAE J1939 Standard. woot16-paperburakova.pdf (usenix.org). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:14 Mar 29, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18471 Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 1.95 and 501.8. Anne L. Collins, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. 2022–06683 Filed 3–29–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC’s determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for applicable date(s). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 202–622–2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202–622–2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202–622–4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202–622– 2490. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Electronic Availability The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC’s website (https://www.treasury.gov/ofac). Notice of OFAC Actions On March 25, 2022, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below. Individuals 1. HEIN, Zaw, Burma; DOB 01 Jan 1974 to 31 Dec 1975; citizen Burma; Gender Male (individual) [BURMA–EO14014]. Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of Executive Order 14014 of February 10, 2021, ‘‘Blocking Property With Respect to The Situation In Burma’’ (‘‘E.O. 14014’’), 86 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM 30MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18470-18471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06683]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0029]


Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP21-005

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a 
petition submitted on September 27, 2021, by Mr. James Lamb to NHTSA's 
Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). The petition requests that the 
Agency initiate an investigation into alleged ``defects in the 2006 
J1939 databus,'' citing a 2016 research paper published through the 
University of Michigan. On December 23, 2021, NHTSA opened Defect 
Petition DP21-005 to evaluate the petitioner's request. After reviewing 
the information provided by the petitioner regarding the alleged defect 
and conducting searches of complaints from vehicle owners, operators, 
and fleet supervisors, NHTSA has concluded that there is insufficient 
evidence to warrant further action at this time. Accordingly, the 
Agency has denied the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ryan Rahimpour, Medium and Heavy-
Duty Vehicle Defects Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-8756).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1.0 Introduction

    Pursuant to 49 CFR 552.1, interested persons may petition NHTSA 
requesting that the Agency initiate an investigation to determine 
whether a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment fails to 
comply with applicable motor vehicle safety standards or contains a 
defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. 49 U.S.C. 30162; 49 CFR 
part 552. Upon receipt of a properly filed petition, the Agency 
conducts a technical review of the petition, material submitted with 
the petition, and any additional information. 49 U.S.C. 30162(c); 49 
CFR

[[Page 18471]]

552.6. After the technical review and considering appropriate factors, 
which may include, among other factors, Agency priorities, and the 
likelihood of success in litigation that might arise from a 
determination of a noncompliance or a defect related to motor vehicle 
safety, the Agency will grant or deny the petition. 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); 
49 CFR 552.8.

2.0 Petition

    Mr. James Lamb (the petitioner), Executive Director of the Small 
Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC), submitted a petition to 
NHTSA on September 27, 2021. The petition requested NHTSA to initiate a 
defect investigation into the potential hacking susceptibility of the 
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1939 Data Bus standard.
    In support of the petition, the petitioner cited a 2016 study from 
University of Michigan (Michigan) researchers, entitled Truck Hacking: 
An Experimental Analysis of the SAE J1939 Standard, which alleges a SAE 
J1939 Data Bus vulnerability in a Model Year (MY) 2001 school bus and a 
MY 2006 Class-8 semi-tractor.\1\ The study alleges that, due to the 
vulnerability, vehicle critical safety functions such as the 
accelerator control or braking systems are susceptible to unauthorized 
access and control, increasing motor vehicle safety risks. The petition 
includes no other specification with respect to affected makes or 
models of vehicles with the alleged safety defect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Burakova, Y., Hass, B., Millar, L., Weimerskirch, A., 
(2016). Truck Hacking: An Experimental Analysis of the SAE J1939 
Standard. woot16-paper-burakova.pdf (usenix.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.0 Analysis

    On December 23, 2021, ODI opened Defect Petition Investigation 
DP21-005 to evaluate the petitioner's request. In evaluating the 
petition, ODI reviewed the cited University of Michigan study to 
understand and determine the scope and feasibility of the alleged 
defect and reviewed the NHTSA database for similar complaints.
    The petitioner did not specify the make and model of the vehicles 
with the alleged safety defect. The only categories of relevant subject 
vehicles specified were found in the Michigan study: MY 2001 school 
buses and MY 2006 Class-8 semi-tractors.
    After reviewing the available information and using ODI's risk-
based processes, ODI has not identified evidence that would support 
opening a defect investigation into the subject vehicles. The vehicle 
vulnerabilities reported in the Michigan study required physical access 
to the J1939 connector in order to affect vehicle critical safety 
functions such as the accelerator control or braking systems. Whether 
there is a potential for remote compromise is a factor that NHTSA has 
considered in evaluating the likelihood or frequency of a potential 
safety defect. The Michigan study did not demonstrate a remote 
compromise of these vehicles. In addition, based on the age of the 
subject model year school buses and semi-tractors, they do not have 
over-the-air software update capabilities or an internet connection to 
make remote compromise possible.
    ODI conducted a search for similar complaints received by the 
Agency and found no complaints of any type related to this alleged 
vulnerability, aside from the Petition. This evaluation included 
searches of complaints from vehicle owners, operators, and fleet 
supervisors. ODI has not found any similar events, complaints, or 
allegations suggesting a real-life vulnerability based on the available 
information. Therefore, given a thorough analysis of the potential for 
finding a safety-related defect in the subject vehicles, and in view of 
NHTSA's enforcement priorities, a defects investigation is unlikely to 
result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety 
exists.

4.0 Conclusion

    NHTSA is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and 
remedy of a defect if the Agency's investigation shows a defect in the 
design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents 
an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9), 30118. Given 
that the existing information does not provide evidence of a real-life 
vulnerability in the alleged subject vehicles, caused by a vehicle-
based defect, it is unlikely that an order concerning the notification 
and remedy of a safety-related defect would be issued due to any 
investigation opened upon grant of this petition. Therefore, and upon 
full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the 
potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. The denial of this 
petition does not foreclose the Agency from taking further action if 
warranted or making a future finding that a safety-related defect 
exists based upon additional information the Agency may receive.
    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 1.95 
and 501.8.

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-06683 Filed 3-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P