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
47722 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 

1This provision was codified at 15 U.S.C. 

1397(c)(3)(A) prior to the 1994 recodification of the 

transportation laws. 

2A registered importer is an importer that has 

registered with NHTSA under 49 CFR part 592 and 

is therefore authorized to modify and then certify 

imported vehicles as compliant with all applicable 

FMVSS. 

3NHTSA previously granted DVS permission to 

temporarily import multiple 2015 Chevrolet 

Cheyenne vehicles for purposes of preparing its 

petition. See 49 CFR 571.5(l). Nothing in DVS’s 

petition suggests that its analysis involves any 

model year of the Subject Vehicles other than these 

2015 Chevrolet Cheyenne vehicles. 

vehicle to which it is being compared, 

and (3) capable of being readily altered 

to conform to all applicable FMVSS. See 

49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A).1 If NHTSA 

determines that a nonconforming 

vehicle is import eligible, any such 

nonconforming vehicle imported into 

the United States must be modified into 

conformance and certified as 

conforming by a registered importer 

before it is sold or otherwise released 

from the custody of the registered 

importer. 49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1); 49 CFR 

592.6.2

Petitions for import eligibility 

decisions may be submitted by either 

manufacturers or registered importers 

and must comply with the requirements 

set forth in 49 CFR 593.6. A petition 

based on the existence of a substantially 

similar conforming vehicle 

manufactured for import and certified 

for sale in the United States must 

include, among other things, ‘‘[d]ata, 

views and arguments demonstrating that 

the vehicle [which is the subject of the 

petition] is substantially similar to the 

vehicle identified by the petitioner’’ as 

a comparison vehicle. Id. § 593.6(a)(4). 

The petition also must include, with 

respect to each of the FMVSS applicable 

to the comparison vehicle, ‘‘data, views, 

and arguments demonstrating that the 

vehicle [which is the subject of the 

petition] either was originally 

manufactured to conform to such 

standard, or is capable of being readily 

modified to conform to such standard.’’ 

Id. § 593.6(a)(4). 

As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA 

publishes notice of each petition that it 

receives in the Federal Register and 

affords interested persons an 

opportunity to comment on the petition. 

At the close of the comment period, 

NHTSA decides whether the vehicle is 

eligible for importation based on the 

petition, its review of any comments 

received, and the agency’s own analysis. 

NHTSA will grant a petition for import 

eligibility if it ‘‘determines that the 

petition clearly demonstrates that the 

vehicle model is eligible for 

importation’’ and will deny the petition 

if it ‘‘determines that the petition does 

not clearly demonstrate that the vehicle 

model is eligible for importation.’’ 49 

CFR 593.7(e)–(f). NHTSA then publishes 

its decision and the reasons for it in the 

Federal Register. Id. 

II. Summary of Petition 

DVS, a registered importer located in 

Indianapolis, Indiana, has petitioned 

NHTSA to decide whether 

nonconforming MY 2014–2018 

Chevrolet Cheyenne TKs (the Subject 

Vehicles) are eligible for importation 

into the United States. Petitioner 

contends the Subject Vehicles are 

substantially similar to MY 2014–2018 

Chevrolet Silverado TKs (the 

Comparison Vehicles) sold in the 

United States and certified by their 

manufacturer as conforming to all 

applicable FMVSS. The Chevrolet 

Cheyenne is a pick-up truck 

manufactured by General Motors (GM) 

for sale in Mexico. GM does not sell 

Cheyenne pick-up trucks in the United 

States. 

DVS’s petition requests an import 

eligibility decision for five separate 

model years (MY 2014–2018) of the 

Subject Vehicles, but it does not 

distinguish between these different 

model years, does not state that it 

included a vehicle from each of these 

five model years in its analysis, and 

does not state that it compared each 

model year of the Subject Vehicles to 

the same model year of the Comparison 

vehicles.3 The petition includes no 

representations and states no factual 

basis for any representations regarding 

the similarity of the different model 

years of either the Subject Vehicles or 

the Comparison Vehicles. 

Petitioner nonetheless asserts it 

compared the Subject Vehicles to the 

Comparison Vehicles and ‘‘believe[s]’’ 

they are substantially similar in that the 

Subject Vehicles comply with ‘‘the great 

majority of the standards’’ to which the 

Comparison Vehicles are certified. 

Petitioner states that it further 

‘‘believe[s]’’ that the Subject Vehicles 

are capable of being readily modified to 

conform to all remaining standards.’’ 

Petitioner states that these beliefs are 

‘‘based on information obtained during 

a detailed inspection of the [Subject 

Vehicles] for which this determination 

is sought’’ and that it ‘‘reviewed all 

available parts, service, and sales 

literature in order to thoroughly 

compare the two vehicles.’’ Petitioner 

provides no details regarding its 

‘‘detailed inspection’’ and does not 

identify any of the ‘‘parts, service, and 

sales literature’’ it reviewed. 

Specifically, Petitioner claims that, 

based on this comparison, it determined 

that the Subject Vehicles, as originally 

manufactured, conform to: FMVSS Nos. 

102, Transmission Shift Position 

Sequence, Starter Interlock, and 

Transmission Braking Effect; 103, 

Windshield Defrosting and Defogging 

Systems; 104, Windshield Wiping and 

Washing Systems; 106, Brake Hoses; 

FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective 

Devices and Associated Equipment; 

FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and 

Rims; 111, Rearview Mirrors; 113, Hood 

Latch System; 114, Theft Protection and 

Rollaway Prevention; 116, Motor 

Vehicle Brake Fluids; 118, PowerOperated Window, Partition, and Roof 

Panel System; 119, New Pneumatic 

Tires; 124, Accelerator Control Systems; 

126, Electronic Stability Control 

Systems; 135, Light Vehicle Brake 

Systems; 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring 

Systems; 201, Occupant Protection in 

Interior Impact; 202, Head Restraints; 

203, Impact Protection for Driver from 

Steering Control; 204, Steering Control 

Rearward Displacement; 205, Glazing 

Materials; 206, Door Locks and Door 

Retention Components; 207, Seating 

Systems; 208, Occupant Crash 

Protection; 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; 

210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; 

212, Windshield Mounting; 213, Child 

Restraint Systems; 214, Side Impact 

Resistance; 216, Roof Crush Resistance; 

219, Windshield Zone Intrusion; 301, 

Fuel System Integrity; and 302, 

Flammability of Interior Materials. 

Petitioner also states the Subject 

Vehicles comply with 49 CFR part 541, 

Anti-Theft/Parts Marking Requirements; 

and 49 CFR part 565, VIN Requirements. 

Petitioner states that the Subject 

Vehicles, as built, are noncompliant 

with FMVSS No. 101, Controls and 

Displays, but contends that they can 

readily be conformed to this standard 

with replacing the faceplate for the 

instrument cluster with one that 

includes the word ‘‘BRAKE.’’ Petitioner 

additionally states that a reference and 

certification label will be added to the 

left front door post area to meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR part 567, 

Certification Requirements. Petitioner 

states that the Subject Vehicles have a 

gross vehicle weight rating ‘‘GVWR 

range of 6,800–7,200 lbs.,’’ but provides 

no information regarding the GVWR of 

the Comparison Vehicles, as required by 

the applicable regulations. See 49 CFR 

593.6(a)(1). 

III. Public Comments 

A Notice of Receipt of DVS’s Petition 

was published in the Federal Register 

for public comment for a period of 30 

days. 85 FR 81268 (Dec. 15, 2020). One 

public comment was submitted in 

response to the Notice of Receipt. GM, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 47723 

4A copy of the comment submitted by GM may 

be found at docket ID: NHTSA–2020–0107–0002. 

5A copy of GM’s response may be found at docket 

ID: NHTSA–2020–0107–0003. 

the manufacturer of both the Subject 

Vehicles and the Comparison Vehicles, 

commented that; 

GM does not recommend that these 

vehicles be granted eligibility for importation 

into the United States. The owners of these 

vehicles will find it very difficult or 

impossible to get safety-critical repairs in the 

US. 

GM further explained in its comment 

that its dealers in the US are only 

authorized to service US-designated 

vehicles under the terms of their 

existing franchise agreements, and that 

the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 

will not be recognized by the GM 

Multiple Diagnostic Interface (MDI) tool 

used at a US GM dealership.4

IV. NHTSA’s Analysis 

A petition to determine import 

eligibility must include all information 

required under the applicable 

authorities and must also include data, 

views, and arguments demonstrating the 

conclusions advanced by the petition. 

DVS’s petition fails to meet these 

requirements because it does not 

include sufficient supporting 

information and relies almost 

exclusively on unsupported conclusory 

allegations. The petition fails to 

distinguish between five different model 

years of the Subject Vehicles and 

Comparison Vehicles or even confirm 

that DVS compared vehicles of the same 

model year. See 49 U.S.C. 

30141(a)(1)(A)(iii). The petition also 

fails to provide ‘‘the gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) of ’’ the 

Comparison Vehicles. 49 CFR 

593.6(a)(1). The petition does not 

provide adequate ‘‘[d]ata, views and 

arguments demonstrating’’ that the 

Comparison Vehicles are ‘‘substantially 

similar’’ to the Subject Vehicles. Id. 

§ 593.6(a)(4). The petition also fails to 

provide, ‘‘[w]ith respect to each Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard’’ 

applicable to the Comparison Vehicles, 

‘‘data, views, and arguments 

demonstrating’’ that the Subject 

Vehicles either were ‘‘originally 

manufactured to conform to such 

standard, or [are] capable of being 

readily modified to conform to such 

standard.’’ Id. § 593.6(a)(5). 

As the basis for its assertion that the 

Subject Vehicles are compliant with the 

FMVSS identified above, Petitioner 

simply repeats the statement that the 

‘‘MX-Cheyenne complies with the 

requirements of this standard and is 

identical to the U.S.-vehicle with 

respect to those requirements’’ 

following a reference to each of these 

standards. Petitioner offers no factual or 

analytical support for any of these 

conclusory assertions. For two of the 

standards (FMVSS No. 138 (tire 

pressure monitoring systems) and 

FMVSS No. 208 (occupant crash 

protection)), Petitioner identifies 

various components by part number and 

states that the Subject Vehicles and the 

Comparison Vehicles employ identical 

components. Petitioner did not submit 

any parts catalogs or any other technical 

resource for any model year of either the 

Subject Vehicles or the Comparison 

Vehicles to verify these assertions and 

fails to explain why the usage of 

identical parts would demonstrate that 

the Subject Vehicles, as built, were 

compliant with these standards. For 

FMVSS No. 214 (side impact 

resistance), Petitioner states that it 

‘‘removed the interior trim on a door of 

[a Subject Vehicle] and confirm[ed] that 

the vehicle is originally equipped with 

door beams to comply with the 

requirements of this standard.’’ This 

level of examination and analysis does 

not demonstrate compliance for the 

Subject Vehicles because meeting the 

performance requirements of FMVSS 

No. 214 requires far more than the 

existence of door beams. See 49 CFR 

571.214. 

As part of its analysis of DVS’s 

petition, NHTSA requested additional 

information from GM, the manufacturer 

of both the Subject Vehicles and the 

Comparison Vehicles.5 In response to 

NHTSA’s question regarding the 

compliance of the Subject Vehicles with 

FMVSS requirements, GM explained 

that the Subject Vehicles, as built, fail 

to conform with the speedometer and 

odometer display requirements in 

FMVSS No. 101 (controls and displays), 

the tire placard requirements in FMVSS 

No. 110 (tires and rims), the language 

visibility requirements of FMVSS No. 

135 (brake systems), and the passenger 

air bag telltale and visor warning 

requirements in FMVSS No. 208 

(occupant crash protection). This 

information directly contradicts 

Petitioner’s assertion that the Subject 

Vehicles, as built, were compliant with 

these requirements. 

In regard to the Subject Vehicles, GM 

also explained that tire pressure 

monitoring systems (TPMS) are not 

required in Mexico, and each imported 

vehicle would therefore have to be 

checked to verify that it had an optional 

FMVSS No. 138 compliant TPMS 

installed at the time of manufacture. 

This information directly contradicts 

Petitioner’s assertion that all Subject 

Vehicles, as built, are equipped with a 

FMVSS No. 138 compliant TPMS. 

Finally, GM explained that there is a 

unique engine and manual transmission 

combination available for the Subject 

Vehicles in Mexico, and that GM has no 

documentation demonstrating 

compliance of vehicles so equipped 

with FMVSS No. 102 (transmission shift 

position sequence), FMVSS No. 114 

(rollaway prevention), and FMVSS No. 

124 (accelerator control). Petitioner 

provided no information regarding this 

particular engine and transmission 

combination, no basis for identifying its 

presence or absence in the Subject 

Vehicles, and no information regarding 

whether Subject Vehicles with this 

unique engine and transmission 

combination could be modified to 

conform with the relevant FMVSS. 

V. NHTSA’s Decision 

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate 

that the Subject Vehicles are 

substantially similar to the Comparison 

Vehicles, failed to demonstrate that its 

comparison of the Subject Vehicles to 

the Comparison Vehicles involved 

vehicles of the same model year, and 

failed to demonstrate that the Subject 

Vehicles are either compliant with or 

capable of being readily altered to 

comply with all applicable FMVSS. The 

petition is therefore denied. Pursuant to 

49 CFR 593.7(e), NHTSA will not 

consider a new petition covering the 

models that are the subject of this 

decision until at least three months from 

the date of this notice of denial. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8) 

Joseph Kolly, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18357 Filed 8–25–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2021–0025; Notice 2] 

Combi USA, Denial of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Denial of petition. 

SUMMARY: Combi USA (Combi), has 

determined that certain Combi USA 

BabyRide rear-facing child restraint 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES