Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 47719 

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 

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 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments on a request for approval. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
47720 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 

1 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.95. 

2See 49 U.S.C. 30101 and 30111. 

3 71 FR 50997, August 28, 2006. 

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 

• 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 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 47721 

4https://www.computerworld.com/article/ 

3182207/cw50-data-storage-goes-from-1m-to-2- 

cents-per-gigabyte.html 

5https://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 

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 

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 

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 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

determination of import eligibility. 

SUMMARY: 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). 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES