60day FRN

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

III. Decision To Grant the Petition
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49
CFR 543.8(b), the agency grants a
petition for exemption from the partsmarking requirements of part 541, either
in whole or in part, if it determines that,
based upon substantial evidence, the
standard equipment antitheft device is
likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that Ford has provided adequate
reasons for its belief that the antitheft
device for its vehicle line is likely to be
as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with
the parts-marking requirements of the
theft prevention standard. This
conclusion is based on the information
Ford provided about its antitheft device.
NHTSA believes, based on Ford’s
supporting evidence, that the antitheft
device described for its vehicle line is
likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the theft prevention
standard.
The agency concludes that Ford’s
antitheft device will provide four types
of performance features listed in section
543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation;
preventing defeat or circumvention of
the device by unauthorized persons;
preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
The agency notes that 49 CFR part
541, Appendix A–1, identifies those
lines that are exempted from the theft
prevention standard for a given model
year. 49 CFR 543.8(f) contains
publication requirements incident to the
disposition of all part 543 petitions.
Advanced listing, including the release
of future product nameplates, the
beginning model year for which the
petition is granted and a general
description of the antitheft device is
necessary in order to notify law
enforcement agencies of new vehicle
lines exempted from the parts-marking
requirements of the theft prevention
standard.
If Ford decides not to use the
exemption for its requested vehicle line,
the manufacturer must formally notify
the agency. If such a decision is made,
the line must be fully marked as
required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6
(marking of major component parts and
replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Ford wishes in
the future to modify the device on
which this exemption is based, the
company may have to submit a petition
to modify the exemption. Section

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:30 Aug 25, 2021

Jkt 253001

543.8(d) states that a part 543 exemption
applies only to vehicles that belong to
a line exempted under this part and
equipped with the antitheft device on
which the line’s exemption is based.
Further, section 543.10(c)(2) provides
for the submission of petitions ‘‘to
modify an exemption to permit the use
of an antitheft device similar to but
differing from the one specified in the
exemption.’’
The agency wishes to minimize the
administrative burden that section
543.10(c)(2) could place on exempted
vehicle manufacturers and itself. The
agency did not intend in drafting part
543 to require the submission of a
modification petition for every change
to the components or design of an
antitheft device. The significance of
many such changes could be de
minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests
that if Ford contemplates making any
changes, the effects of which might be
characterized as de minimis, it should
consult the agency before preparing and
submitting a petition to modify.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full Ford’s petition for
exemption for the confidential vehicle
line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541,
beginning with its MY 2022 vehicles.
Issued under authority delegated in
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2021–18421 Filed 8–25–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket Number NHTSA–2021–0058]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Notice and Request for
Comments; Event Data Recorders
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments on a request for approval.
AGENCY:

NHTSA invites public
comments about our intention to request
approval from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for an information
collection currently in use. Before a
Federal agency can collect certain
information from the public, it must
receive approval from OMB. Under
procedures established by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before seeking OMB approval, Federal

SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00106

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

47719

agencies must solicit public comment
on proposed collections of information,
including extensions and reinstatements
of previously approved collections. This
document describes a collection of
information on event data recorders
(EDRs) for which NHTSA intends to
seek OMB approval. The information
collection currently does not have an
OMB control number.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by October 25, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
[identified by Docket No. NHTSA–
2021–0058] through one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12–
140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except on Federal holidays. To
be sue someone is there to help you,
please call 202–366–9322 before
coming.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number for this notice. Note that all
comments received will be posted
without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, 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 (65 FR
19477–78) or you may visit https://
www.transportation.gov/privacy.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to http://
www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets
via internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information or access to
background documents, contact Carla
Rush, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, West Building, Room W43–417,
NRM–100, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone number: 202–366–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), before an agency
submits a proposed collection of

E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM

26AUN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

47720

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices

information to OMB for approval, it
must first publish a document in the
Federal Register providing a 60-day
comment period and otherwise consult
with members of the public and affected
agencies concerning each proposed
collection of information. The OMB has
promulgated regulations describing
what must be included in such a
document. Under OMB’s regulation (at
5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask
for public comment on the following: (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) how to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; (d) how to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, 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. In compliance with these
requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed
collection of information for which the
agency is seeking approval from OMB.
Title: Event Data Recorders.
OMB Control Number: New.
Type of Request: Approval of an
existing collection in use without an
OMB Control Number.
Type of Review Requested: Regular.
Requested Expiration Date of
Approval: Three years from the date of
approval.
Summary of the Collection of
Information: 49 CFR part 563, Event
Data Recorders, specifies uniform,
national requirements for vehicles
voluntarily equipped with EDRs
concerning the collection, storage, and
retrievability of onboard motor vehicle
crash event data. More specifically it
requires voluntarily installed EDRs in
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (8,500
pounds) or less to:
• Record 15 essential data elements;
• Record up to 30 additional data
elements if the vehicle is equipped to
record these elements;
• Record these data elements in a
standardized format, with specifications
for range, accuracy, resolution, sampling
rate, recording duration, and filter class;
• Function after full-scale vehicle
crash tests specified in FMVSS Nos. 208
and 214; and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:30 Aug 25, 2021

Jkt 253001

• Have the capacity to record two
events in a multi-event crash.
In addition, Part 563 requires vehicle
manufacturers to make a retrieval tool
for the EDR information commercially
available, and include a standardized
statement in the owner’s manual
indicating that the vehicle is equipped
with an EDR and describing its purpose.
Part 563 helps ensure that EDRs record,
in a readily usable manner, data
valuable for effective crash
investigations and for analysis of safety
equipment performance (e.g., advanced
restraint systems).
Description of the Need for the
Information and Use of the Information:
Under 49 U.S.C. 322(a), the Secretary of
Transportation (the ‘‘Secretary’’) is
authorized to prescribe regulations to
carry out the duties and powers of the
Secretary. One of the duties of the
Secretary is to administer the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as
amended. The Secretary has delegated
the responsibility for carrying out the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act to NHTSA.1 Two statutory
provisions, 49 U.S.C. 30182 and 23
U.S.C. 403, authorize NHTSA to collect
motor vehicle crash data to support its
safety mission. NHTSA collects motor
vehicle crash information under these
authorities to support its statutory
mandate to establish motor vehicle
safety standards and reduce the
occurrence and cost of traffic crashes.2
NHTSA also utilizes crash data in the
enforcement of motor vehicle safety
recalls and other motor vehicle highway
safety programs that reduce fatalities,
injuries, and property damage caused by
motor vehicle crashes. In 2006, NHTSA
exercised its general authority to issue
such rules and regulations as deemed
necessary to carry out Chapter 301 of
Title 49, United States Code to
promulgate 49 CFR part 563.3
NHTSA issued part 563 to improve
crash data collection by standardizing
data recorded on EDRs to help provide
a better understanding of the
circumstances in which crashes and
injuries occur, which will in turn lead
to the development of safer vehicle
designs. EDR data are used to improve
the quality of crash data collection to
assist safety researchers, vehicle
manufacturers, and the agency in crash
investigations to understand vehicle
crashes better and more precisely.
Similarly, vehicle manufacturers are
able to utilize EDRs in improving
vehicle designs and developing more
1 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.95.
2 See 49 U.S.C. 30101 and 30111.
3 71 FR 50997, August 28, 2006.

PO 00000

Frm 00107

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

effective vehicle safety
countermeasures, and EDR data may be
used by Advanced Automatic Crash
Notification (AACN) systems to aid
emergency response teams in assessing
the severity of a crash and estimating
the probability of serious injury.
Additionally, the agency’s experience
in handling unintended acceleration
and pedal entrapment allegations has
demonstrated that, if a vehicle is
equipped with an EDR, the data from
that EDR can improve the ability of both
the agency and the vehicle’s
manufacturer to identify and address
safety concerns associated with possible
defects in the design or performance of
the vehicle.
Description of the Likely Respondents:
The respondents are manufacturers that
voluntarily equip passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks, and buses having a GVWR of
3,855 kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an
unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg
(5,500 pounds) with EDRs. The agency
estimates that there are approximately
18 such manufacturers.
Estimate Total Annual Burden Hours:
NHTSA estimates that there are no
annual reporting or recordkeeping
burdens associated with Part 563,
except for the owner’s manual statement
requirement which will be incorporated
into the consolidated owner’s manual
requirements information collection
(OMB Control Number 2127–0541).
Vehicle manufacturers are not required
to retain or report information gathered
by EDRs because the devices themselves
continuously monitor vehicle systems
and determine when to record, retain,
and/or overwrite information. The
information is collected automatically
by electronic means. Data are only
required to be locked and cannot be
overwritten when a recordable event
occurs (e.g., an air bag deploys in a
crash event). When recordable events do
occur, EDRs only capture data for a few
seconds. NHTSA estimates that there is
no annual hourly burden associated
with the information standardization
requirements of part 563.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost:
In the August 2006 final rule, the agency
estimated that the costs associated with
the final rule were negligible. Several
factors contributed to this
determination. First, NHTSA estimated
that about 64 percent of new light
vehicles in 2005 already added the EDR
capability to the vehicles’ existing air
bag control systems. Thus, the EDRs
were simply capturing information that
was already being processed by the
vehicle. Additionally, in the final rule
the agency sought to limit the number
of EDR data elements and associated

E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM

26AUN1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

requirements to the minimum necessary
to achieve our stated purposes. At that
time, NHTSA determined that the
industry’s current state-of-the-art EDRs
largely met the purposes of part 563.
Thus, it was unnecessary to specify
requirements for additional sensors or
other hardware that would increase EDR
costs appreciably. NHTSA stated in the
final rule that the most significant
technology cost could result from the
need to upgrade data storage.
The cost of data storage, long-term or
short-term, has drastically reduced over
the years.4 Regardless of the storage
type, costs are now a fraction of what
they were even 10 years ago.5 A recent
study from NHTSA looking at EDR
technologies reported that information
provided by industry indicated that a
typical recorded event requires about 2
kilobytes (Kb) of memory depending on
the manufacturer.6 Information from
manufacturers also indicated that the
typical microprocessor used in vehicle
applications, in approximately the 2013
timeframe, had 32 Kb or 64 Kb of flash
data as part of the air bag control
module (ACM) and that only a fraction
of the memory is dedicated to the EDR
data. This study also estimated the total
memory usage for all Table I and Table
II data elements, listed at 49 CFR 563.7,
recorded for the minimum required
duration and frequency requirements in
part 563. It reported that to record Table
I and II data elements would require
0.072 Kb and 0.858 Kb of memory
storage, respectively.
In addition, NHTSA now estimates
that 99.5 percent of model year 2021
light vehicles have a compliant EDR,
meaning manufacturers have largely
already incurred the cost of meeting the
part 563 requirements. Given that EDRs
are installed on nearly all new light
vehicles, the large amount of storage
that is part of the air bag control module
(32 kb or 64 kb), the small fraction
required for EDR data (<1 kb), and the
negligible costs for data storage, NHTSA
continues to believe that there would be
no additional costs or negligible costs
associated with the Part 563
requirements. Therefore, the cost
burden for this collection of information
is discussed qualitatively.
Part 563 only applies to vehicles
voluntarily-equipped with EDRs.
Therefore, any burden is based on the
differences in cost between a compliant
4 https://www.computerworld.com/article/
3182207/cw50-data-storage-goes-from-1m-to-2cents-per-gigabyte.html
5 https://hblok.net/blog/posts/2017/12/17/
historical-cost-of-computer-memory-and-storage-4/
6 DOT HS 812 929, https://www.nhtsa.gov/
document/light-vehicle-event-data-recordertechnologies

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:30 Aug 25, 2021

Jkt 253001

and non-compliant EDR. In considering
additional burden for compliant EDRs,
NHTSA considered: (1) The additional
burden of meeting the 10-day data crash
survivability requirement; and (2) the
additional burden of meeting the data
format requirements. Part 563 requires
that an EDR must function during and
after the compliance tests specified in
FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214. The EDR’s
stored data is required to be
downloadable 10 days after the crash
tests. This requirement provides a basic
functioning and survivability level for
EDRs, but does not ensure that EDRs
survive extremely severe crashes, fire, or
fluid immersion. The burden for data
survivability can include costs for an
additional power supply and
enhancements for computer area
network (CAN) such as wiring, data bus,
and harness. However, before part 563
was established the agency had not
documented an EDR survivability
problem except in rare and extremely
severe events such as fire and
submergence. Thus, the agency does not
believe vehicle manufacturers incur
additional costs to comply with the
ability to retrieve the essential data
elements 10 days after the crash test.
With regard to the memory capacity
required to meet the part 563 data
requirements, due to proprietary
concerns, the adequacy of existing
memory capacity of part 563 noncompliant vehicles is not known.
However, we believe that the part 563
requirements are comparable to the
current industry EDR practices. In terms
of the burden associated with software
algorithm changes to meet the data
format requirements, the agency
believes that, in the event a vehicle
manufacturer needs to redesign their
software algorithm, the redesign would
be minor (e.g., changing the
specifications in their codes). The
agency estimates that the cost of
algorithm redesign would be negligible
on a per vehicle basis and it would be
an upfront cost (i.e., not a recurring
burden).
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
Department, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the Department’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
information collection; (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

PO 00000

Frm 00108

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

47721

automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as
amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order
1351.29.
R. Ryan Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021–18420 Filed 8–25–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0107; Notice 2]

Notice of Denial of Petition for
Decision That Nonconforming Model
Year 2014–2018 Chevrolet Cheyenne
Trucks Are Eligible for Importation
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for
determination of import eligibility.
AGENCY:

Diversified Vehicle Services,
Inc. (DVS or Petitioner) has petitioned
NHTSA for a decision that model year
(MY) 2014–2018 Chevrolet Cheyenne
Trucks (TKs), which were not originally
manufactured to comply with all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards (FMVSS), are eligible for
importation into the United States. In its
petition, DVS claims that these vehicles
are eligible for import because they are
substantially similar to Chevrolet
Silverado TKs originally manufactured
for sale in the United States and
certified by their manufacturer as
complying with all applicable FMVSS,
and because they are capable of being
readily altered to conform to the
standards. This document announces
the denial of DVS’s petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Mazurowski, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–
1012).
SUMMARY:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
A motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to
all applicable FMVSS may be eligible
for import into the United States if
NHTSA determines that the motor
vehicle is: (1) Substantially similar to a
motor vehicle originally manufactured
for importation into and certified for
sale in the United States, (2) of the same
model year as the model of the motor

E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM

26AUN1