[Federal Register: June 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 36767]
[DOCID:fr28jn06-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP05-29-004]

Freebird Gas Storage, L.L.C.; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 20, 2006.
    Take notice that on June 15, 2006, Freebird Gas Storage, L.L.C.
(Freebird) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective June 1,
2006:

Original Sheet No. 0
Original Sheet No. 3
First Revised Sheet No. 112
First Revised Sheet No. 144
First Revised Sheet Nos. 151-199

    Freebird asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with
the Commission's order issued May 31, 2006, in Docket No. CP05-29-000.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 7, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-10161 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12641-12643]
[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

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

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