[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12641-12643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04729]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-00199]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petitions for 
Rulemaking

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

ACTION: Denial of petitions for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies the September 27, 2021 petitions for 
rulemaking submitted by the Small Business in Transportation Coalition 
(SBTC) (``petitioner''). The petitioner requested that the agency 
initiate rulemaking to establish a new Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard (FMVSS) on the installation of electronic logging devices 
(ELDs), and to amend existing FMVSSs for heavy vehicle braking and 
accelerator control systems (i.e., FMVSS Nos. 105, 121, and 124). NHTSA 
is

[[Page 12642]]

denying the petitions based on a lack of information necessary under 
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the allocation of 
agency resources.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gunyoung Lee, Safety Standards 
Engineer, Office of Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 
Telephone: 202-366-6005.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petitions for Rulemaking
III. NHTSA's Analysis and Decision

I. Background

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Safety Act'') 
(49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards 
for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each 
FMVSS standard must be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle 
safety, and be stated in objective terms. NHTSA does not endorse any 
vehicles or items of equipment. Further, NHTSA does not approve or 
certify vehicles or equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 
``self-certification'' process under which each manufacturer is 
responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety 
standards.
    Petitions for rulemaking are governed by 49 CFR 552. Pursuant to 
Part 552, the agency conducts a technical review of the petition, which 
may consist of an analysis of the material submitted, together with 
information already in possession of the agency. In deciding whether to 
grant or deny a petition, the agency considers this technical review as 
well as appropriate factors, which include, among others, allocation of 
agency resources and agency priorities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 552.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petitions for Rulemaking

    SBTC submitted a letter, dated September 27, 2021, that includes 
two rulemaking petitions pursuant to 49 CFR 552 and a defect 
investigation petition pursuant to 49 CFR 554. This notice focuses on 
the two rulemaking petitions filed by the petitioner. The other 
petition for opening a defect investigation will be addressed in a 
separate notice.
    The two petitions for rulemaking focus on alleged cybersecurity 
vulnerabilities in commercial motor vehicles and commercial motor 
vehicle equipment. The first petition for rulemaking requests that 
NHTSA establish a new FMVSS to regulate the installation of electronic 
logging devices (ELDs) in commercial motor vehicles. Because NHTSA 
regulates motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, not the 
``installation'' of any such devices, NHTSA is interpreting SBTC's 
request as asking the agency to issue a performance standard for ELDs. 
The second petition for rulemaking requests that NHTSA amend existing 
FMVSSs for braking and accelerator control systems (i.e., FMVSS Nos. 
105,\2\ 121,\3\ and 124 \4\). The petitioner contended that these 
safety standards should be amended because the factory-installed 
braking and acceleration systems are out of date, asserting that the 
systems are vulnerable to telematics hacking. As supporting references, 
SBTC included various information, such as research studies, media 
publications, and government publications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, 
establishes requirements for hydraulic and electric service brake 
systems, and associated parking brake systems to ensure safe braking 
performance. This safety standard applies to multipurpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR) greater than 7,716 pounds.
    \3\ FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, establishes performance 
and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles, such as 
trucks and buses with a GVWR less than 29,000 pounds, and trailers 
equipped with air brake systems to ensure safe braking performance 
under normal and emergency conditions.
    \4\ FMVSS No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, establishes 
requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to idle position 
when the driver removes the actuating force or in the event of 
severance/disconnection of the accelerator control system. This 
standard applies to passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger 
vehicles, trucks, and buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. NHTSA's Analysis and Decision

    After a thorough review of the petitions and accompanying materials 
provided by the petitioner, NHTSA has decided to deny the SBTC's 
rulemaking petitions based on a lack of sufficient data necessary to 
proceed under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30111(a) and (b) 
the allocation of agency resources. The following sections detail the 
primary reasons for the agency's decision.

A. SBTC's Petition To Establish a New FMVSS for the Installation of 
ELDs and NHTSA's Rationale for Denying This Petition

    1. SBTC has not provided sufficient information to establish a 
safety need associated with ELD installation.
    NHTSA reviewed all sources provided by the petitioner to determine 
whether a safety need exists that could be resolved by promulgating a 
FMVSS. In its first rulemaking petition, SBTC contended that the 
hacking vulnerability and weak encryption of ELDs may lead to safety-
critical attacks (i.e., hazards) in commercial vehicles. The references 
cited by the petitioner do not provide support for such assertion or 
sufficient information, such as the nature, cause, size, and potential 
severity of the alleged hazard. As an example, SBTC argued that an 
adversary can hack into ``a vulnerable ELD system'' and take control of 
a commercial vehicle based on an academic research paper 
(``Burakova'').\5\ Contrary to the out-of-context excerpt petitioner 
included in its petition, this paper discusses the possibilities of 
using physical access to a SAE J1939 bus.\6\ The paper makes no 
specific assertions concerning wireless or remote attacks, only that 
``Further research is needed.'' Also, the paper does not discuss 
vulnerabilities in any specific devices that span wireless and J1939 
networks, ELD or otherwise. As such, it is unclear how this paper 
supports petitioner's assertion that a safety standard is necessary for 
ELDs. Additionally, petitioner also provided a 2021 Freightwaves 
article that describes efforts by trucking companies to alter ELD logs 
with physical access. There is no mention of accessing vehicle J1939 
busses in that article. There is no mention of accessing ELD devices 
remotely either. Aside from the potential for falsified logs, the 
regulation of which is not within the jurisdiction of NHTSA, the 
article does not provide evidence of the petitioner's assertion that 
ELDs represent a threat to vehicle control or vehicle safety at all. 
Furthermore, several of the articles provided had nothing to do with 
heavy duty vehicles or ELDs. Therefore, NHTSA does not believe the 
information provided by petitioner identifies a safety need that 
issuing a Federal motor vehicle safety standard for ELDs might 
resolve.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Y. Burakova et al., Truck Hacking: An Experimental Analysis 
of the SAE J1939 Standard, (2016).
    \6\ The excerpt included by the petitioner in support of its 
petitions implied that petitioner was concerned with wireless or 
``remote'' attacks.
    \7\ See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. SBTC has not provided any information on the practical means or 
solutions by which NHTSA might resolve petitioner concerns.
    As stated in previous NHTSA guidance,\8\ the petition should 
describe technologies and designs that are or will be available to 
comply with the performance requirements and

[[Page 12643]]

demonstrate the level of effectiveness of those technologies and 
designs in addressing the claimed concerns regarding the installation 
of ELDs. However, the petitioner provided only high-level, anecdotal 
information about their broad, general concerns. Furthermore, 
petitioner failed to provide any solutions to those concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/understanding_nhtsas_current_regulatory_tools-tag.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. SBTC has not provided the substance that a standard would be 
comprised of.
    As stated in previous NHTSA guidance,\9\ the petition should 
describe the requested standard (i.e., the performance requirements, 
test conditions, and test procedures), the supporting research and 
reasons why those performance requirements, test conditions, and test 
procedures are appropriate and provide proposed regulatory text. 
However, SBTC failed to provide any substantive information regarding 
what a new FMVSS would be comprised of that would resolve the alleged 
concerns regarding the ELD installation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. SBTC's Petition To Amend the Existing FMVSS Nos. 105, 121, and 124, 
and NHTSA's Rationale for Denying This Petition

    Like the first petition for a new FMVSS, this second petition 
should demonstrate a safety need that could be resolved by amending the 
existing FMVSSs. However, SBTC merely contended that the alleged 
vulnerabilities of telematics systems could impact braking and 
acceleration control systems and did not provide sufficient information 
or evidence of such attacks occurring in heavy vehicles. The resources 
provided by the petitioner cover a wide range of potential telematics 
vulnerabilities in light passenger vehicles, many of which are directly 
impacted by specific vehicle architectures (i.e., make and model 
specific, in many instances). Petitioner has failed to provide evidence 
that indicates there is a general safety need related to telematics 
units in heavy vehicles that warrants modification of existing FMVSS. 
Without an identified safety need, it is unclear how petitioner's 
request would meet the need for safety.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the petitioner failed to provide practical means or 
solutions by which NHTSA could resolve its concern. SBTC provided only 
high-level, anecdotal information about its broad, general concerns 
regarding the interaction between telematics and heavy vehicle braking 
and acceleration control systems regulated by the existing FMVSSs. SBTC 
also failed to provide any substantive information regarding the 
amendments of the existing FMVSSs to resolve its concerns.
    Therefore, NHTSA is denying both of the SBTC's rulemaking petitions 
because they lacked sufficient information as discussed above. 
Furthermore, the agency is discretionarily allocating and managing its 
vehicle safety resources to those rulemakings that are mandated by 
Congress and others that have a demonstrated safety need with solutions 
available to resolve those needs.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.95.

Steven S. Cliff,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-04729 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


