Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP21-005, 18470-18471 [2022-06683]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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
