Part 541 Final Rule 69FR17960

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Proposed Rules

43075

*Elevation in feet (NGVD)
Source of flooding and location of referenced elevation

Communities affected
Existing

Modified

At the mouth of Stream 8D6 ....................................... *504 .........
*505 City of Grand Prairie.
Approximately 2,350 feet upstream of Arkansas None ........
*544
Lane.
Stream 8D7:
Approximately 2,000 feet downstream of Sherman *495 .........
*496 City of Grand Prairie.
Street.
Approximately 50 feet downstream of Sherman None ........
*512
Street.
Maps are available for inspection at the Administration Building, 411 Elm Street, 4th Floor, Dallas, Texas.
Send comments to The Honorable Lee F. Jackson, County Judge, Dallas County, Administration Building, 411 Elm Street, 2nd Floor, Dallas,
Texas 75202.
Maps are available for inspection at 320 East Jefferson Boulevard, Dallas, Texas.
Send comments to The Honorable Ron Kirk, Mayor, City of Dallas, City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Texas 75201–6390.
Maps are available for inspection at 200 North 5th Street, Garland, Texas.
Send comments to The Honorable Jim Spence, Mayor, City of Garland, 200 North 5th Street, P.O. Box 469002, Garland, Texas 75046–9002.
Maps are available for inspection at the City Development Center, 206 West Church Street, Grand Prairie, Texas.
Send comments to The Honorable Charles England, Mayor, City of Grand Prairie, 317 College Street, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053–4045.
Maps are available for inspection at 320 East Jefferson Boulevard, Dallas, Texas.
Send comments to The Honorable Mike Anderson, Mayor, City of Mesquite, P.O. Box 850137, Mesquite, Texas 75185–0137.
Maps are available for inspection at 537 Long Creek Road, Sunnyvale, Texas.
Send comments to The Honorable Jim Phaup, Mayor, Town of Sunnyvale, 537 Long Creek Road, Sunnyvale, Texas 75182.
*National Geodetic Vertical Datum
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.
83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’)
Dated: June 18, 2002.
Robert F. Shea,
Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration.
[FR Doc. 02–15934 Filed 6–25–02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 541
[Docket No. NHTSA–2002–12231]
RIN 2127–AI46

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Motor Vehicle
Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984,
NHTSA issued the Federal Motor
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard
requiring specified parts of high-theft
vehicles to be marked with an
identifying number. The Anti Car Theft
Act of 1992 requires NHTSA to conduct
a rulemaking to extend the parts
marking requirements of that Standard
to all passenger cars and multipurpose
passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less,

VerDate May<23>2002

11:03 Jun 25, 2002

Jkt 197001

regardless of theft rate, unless the
Attorney General finds that such a
requirement would not substantially
inhibit chop shop operations and motor
vehicle thefts. The Attorney General has
examined the evidence and concluded
that the standard should be extended.
Therefore, NHTSA is required to issue
this proposal to extend the parts
marking requirements to all passenger
cars and multipurpose passenger
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating of 6,000 pounds or less, and to
light duty trucks with major parts that
are interchangeable with a majority of
the covered major parts of multipurpose
passenger vehicles.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 26, 2002.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your
comments in writing to: Docket Section,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Alternatively, you may submit your
comments electronically by logging onto
the Docket Management System (DMS)
website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on
‘‘Help & Information’’ or ‘‘Help/Info’’ to
view instructions for filing your
comments electronically. Regardless of
how you submit your comments, you
should mention the docket number of
this document. You can find the docket
number at the beginning of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical and policy issues, you may
call Deborah Mazyck, Office of Planning

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

and Consumer Programs, (Telephone:
202–366–0846) (Fax: 202–493–2290).
For legal issues, you may call Dion
Casey, Office of Chief Counsel
(Telephone: 202–366–2992) (Fax: 202–
366–3820).
You may send mail to both of these
officials at National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
You may call Docket Management at
202–366–9324. You may visit the
Docket from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
A copy of the draft justification
statement for the proposed collection of
information associated with this
rulemaking may be obtained by
contacting Walter Culbreath, NHTSA
Information Collection Clearance
Officer, Office of Administration
(Telephone: 202–366–1566). Please
identify the relevant collection of
information by referring to OMB
Clearance No. 2127–0510. A copy of the
draft justification statement will also be
available in the docket. The docket
number is in the heading of this notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. The Motor Vehicle Theft Law
Enforcement Act of 1984
B. The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992
C. The Attorney General’s Initial Review
and Findings
II. Problem Description
A. Motor Vehicle Theft
B. Costs of Motor Vehicle Theft
III. Effectiveness of Parts Marking
A. Deterring Motor Vehicle Thefts

E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM

pfrm17

PsN: 26JNP1

43076

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Proposed Rules

B. Cost of Parts Marking
IV. Agency Proposal
A. Expansion of the Parts Marking
Requirements
B. Permanence of Markings
1. The 1984 Final Rule
2. The 1986 Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration
3. The 1998 Report to Congress
4. The 1999 Abt Associates Report to the
Attorney General
5. The 2000 Attorney General’s Initial
Review
6. Questions on More Permanent Methods
of Parts Marking
C. Marking Air Bags and Window Glazing
D. Exemptions
E. Small Volume Manufacturers
V. Costs and Benefits
A. Costs
B. Benefits
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background
A.The Motor Vehicle Theft Law
Enforcement Act of 1984
In 1984, Congress enacted the Motor
Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act (the
1984 Theft Act) in response to
escalating motor vehicle thefts.1 The
1984 Theft Act was designed to reduce
the incidence of motor vehicle thefts
and simplify the tracing and recovery of
parts from stolen vehicles. The 1984
Theft Act directed NHTSA to issue a
theft prevention standard requiring
vehicle manufacturers to mark major
parts of high-theft passenger car lines
with identifying numbers or symbols.2
In response, NHTSA issued the
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR part 541). (50 FR
43166, October 24, 1985). The standard
applies only to those motor vehicle lines
that the agency has designated as hightheft.3 Manufacturers of these high-theft
passenger motor vehicle lines must
mark the following ‘‘major parts’’ in
those lines with the vehicle
identification number (VIN): Engine,
transmission, hood, fenders, side and
rear doors (including sliding and cargo
1 Pub.

L. 98–547.
1984 Theft Act is codified at 49 U.S.C.
33101, et seq. Section 33102(a)(1) reads: ‘‘The
standard shall apply to—(A) covered major parts
that manufacturers install in passenger motor
vehicles in lines designated under section 33104 of
this title as high theft lines; and (B) major
replacement parts for the major parts described in
clause (A) of this paragraph.’’ Section 33101(10)
defines a ‘‘passenger motor vehicle’’ as including ‘‘a
multipurpose passenger vehicle or light duty truck
when that vehicle or truck is rated at not more than
6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.
3 Appendix C to part 541 specifies the criteria for
selecting lines that are likely to have high theft
rates, and thus are subject to the parts marking
requirements. These criteria include: the retail price
of the vehicle line; the vehicle image or marketing
strategy; the vehicle lines with which the line is
intended to compete, and the theft rates of those
lines; the theft rate for the line; and the presence
or absence of any theft prevention devices.
2 The

VerDate May<23>2002

11:03 Jun 25, 2002

Jkt 197001

doors and decklids, tailgates, or
hatchbacks, whichever is present),
bumpers, quarter panels, and pickup
boxes and/or cargo boxes.4 (50 FR
43166, October 24, 1985). The standard
also requires replacement parts for these
parts to be marked with the
manufacturer’s registered trademark, or
some other unique identifier, and the
letter ‘‘R.’’ 5 The standard became
effective beginning with the 1987 model
year.
Manufacturers can meet the parts
marking requirements with indelibly
marked labels that cannot be removed
without becoming torn or rendering the
number on the label illegible. If
removed, the labels must leave a residue
on the part after being removed so that
investigators will have evidence that a
label was originally present. Alteration
of the number on the label must leave
traces of the original number or
otherwise visibly alter the appearance of
the label material. A replacement major
part must be marked with the registered
trademark of the manufacturer of the
replacement part, or some other unique
identifier, and the letter ‘‘R’’.
The 1984 Theft Act allowed for an
exemption from the parts marking
requirements for certain vehicle lines in
which antitheft devices were installed
as standard equipment. The 1984 Theft
Act limited each manufacturer to two
new exemptions per model year.6 The
manufacturer must petition NHTSA to
obtain an exemption. The agency grants
the exemption if it determines that the
devices are likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the parts
marking requirements.
B. The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992
In 1991, NHTSA submitted a report to
Congress assessing the motor vehicle
theft problem and evaluating the
effectiveness of parts marking.7 At that
time, however, only two years of theft
and recovery data were available for
vehicles with marked parts. As a result,
the agency could not obtain evidence of
the effectiveness of parts marking
4 The engine and transmission may be marked
with either the 17-digit VIN or an 8-digit VIN
derivative.
5 49 CFR 541.6.
6 NHTSA’s procedures for exempting vehicles
from the theft prevention standard are contained in
49 CFR part 543. Manufacturers were allowed two
exemptions per model year through the 1996 model
year. Beginning with the 1997 model year,
manufacturers were allowed one exemption per
model year.
7 Auto Theft and Recovery: Effects of the Motor
Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, Report
to Congress, March 1991. The 1984 Theft Act
required this report.

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

through statistical analysis of theft and
recovery rates.
Nevertheless, the agency found wide
support for parts marking in the law
enforcement community. Investigators
stated that parts marking provided them
with a valuable tool for detecting,
apprehending, and prosecuting vehicle
thieves. After considering the evidence
and public comments obtained during
the preparation of the 1991 report, the
agency recommended that the theft
prevention standard be continued with
minor changes.8
As a result of the agency’s
recommendations and other
information, Congress enacted the Anti
Car Theft Act of 1992 (the 1992 Theft
Act). The 1992 Theft Act extended the
parts marking requirements to
multipurpose passenger vehicles
(MPVs) (i.e., passenger vans and sportutility vehicles) and light duty trucks
(pickup trucks and cargo vans) with a
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
6,000 pounds or less that NHTSA
designated as high-theft. The 1992 Theft
Act also extended the parts marking
requirements to selected motor vehicle
lines that were below the 1990/1991
median theft rate.
As in the 1984 Theft Act, the 1992
Theft Act required NHTSA to report to
Congress on the effects of the Act on
trends in motor vehicle thefts and
recovery by 1997.9 The 1992 Theft Act
also required the Attorney General to
submit two reports, an initial review of
the effectiveness of parts marking,10 and
a long-range review of the effectiveness
of parts marking 11 to the Secretary of
Transportation. The 1992 Theft Act
requires the Attorney General to make a
finding that the Secretary shall extend
the standard unless the Attorney
General finds instead that extending the
standard would not substantially inhibit
8 The agency recommended the following
changes: (1) That the agency be allowed to establish
a median theft rate based on data from the most
current model year; (2) that the agency be allowed
to re-designate a car line from likely high theft to
likely low theft if that line had proved to be below
an established median theft rate for a specified
number of years; and (3) that manufacturers be
allowed an unlimited number of exemptions for
vehicles with anti-theft devices installed as
standard equipment.
9 A copy of this report, Auto Theft and Recovery:
Effects of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 and the
Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984,
Report to Congress, July 1998, has been placed in
the docket. The agency published a preliminary
version of this report in the Federal Register on
June 26, 1997, and requested comments on it. (62
FR 34494).
10 49 U.S.C. 33103(c). The Act does not specify a
due date for the initial review.
11 49 U.S.C. 33103(d). The Act mandates that the
long-range review be completed by December 31,
1999.

E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM

pfrm17

PsN: 26JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Proposed Rules
chop shop operations and motor vehicle
thefts.
Under the 1992 Theft Act, the
Secretary of Transportation is required
to apply the parts marking requirements
to the remaining lines of passenger
motor vehicles (except light duty trucks)
if the Attorney General finds in the
initial review that they should be so
applied.12
C. The Attorney General’s Initial Review
and Findings
On July 21, 2000, the Attorney
General submitted the initial review to
NHTSA. The Attorney General has not
yet completed the long-range review.
In the July 21, 2000 initial review, the
Attorney General reported to the
Secretary of Transportation on the
effectiveness of the parts marking
requirements.13 The Attorney General
concluded:
After conducting an initial review of the
effectiveness of the vehicle theft prevention
standard as required by the Act, I have
determined that the available evidence
warrants application of the vehicle theft
prevention standard to the remaining motor
vehicle lines. That is, the evidence does not
support a finding that requiring motor
vehicle manufacturers to mark major parts in
all motor vehicle lines will not substantially
inhibit chop shop operations and motor
vehicle thefts. Therefore, the parts marking
requirement should be expanded.

The Attorney General based this
conclusion on information from several
sources, including data from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which
reported automobile thefts by model,
model year, state, and registration year
from 1981 through 1995, and R.J. Polk,
Inc., which provided data on car
registrations for that time period. The
Department of Justice (DOJ) also
contracted with Abt Associates to report
on the effectiveness of automobile parts
marking.14
II. Problem Description
A. Motor Vehicle Theft
Motor vehicle thefts occur for a
variety of reasons that can generally be
12 The ‘‘remaining lines’’ referred to are lines of
passenger cars and MPVs that have not been
designated as high-theft vehicle lines. The term
does not refer to lines of light duty trucks, which
would continue to be subject to the procedures for
selecting vehicle lines subject to the parts marking
requirements regardless of the Attorney General’s
findings. As in the past, lines of light duty trucks
would be subject to the parts marking requirements
only if NHTSA designated them as high-theft
vehicle lines.
13 A copy of the initial review has been placed in
the docket.
14 Abt Associates, ‘‘An Evaluation of the
Effectiveness of Automobile Parts Marking on
Preventing Theft,’’ July 1, 1999. A copy of this
report has been placed in the docket.

VerDate May<23>2002

11:03 Jun 25, 2002

Jkt 197001

used to group thefts into two categories:
professional and non-professional.15
Professionals steal vehicles primarily for
three purposes: chop shop operations,
theft and retag, and thefts for export.
Chop shop operations are businesses
that acquire stolen vehicles or hire
thieves to provide vehicles so that parts
can be removed and sold for profit.
These parts may eventually be bought
by others to repair damaged vehicles
since they sell for substantially less than
original equipment parts.
Theft and retag occurs when vehicles
are stolen and sold for profit to be
registered under another VIN. The new
VIN and title are obtained by purchasing
a junked vehicle of the same make and
model. The VIN plate is transferred from
the junked vehicle to the stolen vehicle,
and the title is altered to match the
stolen vehicle.
Thefts for export occur when vehicles
are stolen and illegally shipped out of
the United States to be sold for profit.
Non-professionals steal vehicles
primarily for three purposes: insurance
fraud, concealing one’s identity while
committing another crime, and joyriding
or temporary transportation.
An individual commits insurance
fraud by ‘‘stealing’’ his or her own
vehicle, or having somebody else
‘‘steal’’ and hide it, so he or she can
collect its insured value. After the
insurance company pays, the vehicle
may be abandoned by the thieves,
eventually recovered, and end up as the
property of the insurance company.
Insurance fraud usually occurs when
the owner is in financial distress or the
actual value of a vehicle is much lower
than its insured value.
Non-professional vehicle thieves also
steal vehicles to conceal their identity
while committing another crime, since
the stolen vehicle cannot easily be
traced to the criminal. These thieves
usually use stolen vehicles for
transportation to and from the scene of
the crime. Such vehicles usually are
abandoned soon afterward and
eventually recovered.
Finally, non-professionals steal
vehicles for joyriding or temporary
transportation. Such vehicles are
usually abandoned and recovered after
a matter of hours or days.
According to data from the FBI’s
National Crime Information Center
(NCIC), almost 1.2 million motor
vehicles were stolen in 1995. Passenger
cars accounted for 71 percent of all
motor vehicle thefts in 1995. Light duty
trucks and MPVs accounted for 24
15 This

discussion is a summary of the 1998
report NHTSA submitted to Congress. A copy of
this report has been placed in the docket.

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

43077

percent. The remaining five percent
were thefts of motorcycles, buses, and
heavy trucks.
Of the more than 1 million vehicles
stolen each year, approximately 200,000
are never recovered. Chop shop
operations, theft and retagging, thefts for
export, and insurance fraud are believed
to account for most of the unrecovered
vehicles.
B. Costs of Motor Vehicle Theft
The overall cost of motor vehicle
thefts to the United States economy is
difficult to estimate. Not all thefts are
reported. The precise value of stolen
and recovered vehicles may be
unknown. Moreover, ancillary costs,
such as insurance administration, police
work, and the loss of victims’ time (i.e.,
filling out reports, appearing in court,
acquiring substitute transportation, etc.)
are difficult to gauge.
However, motor vehicle theft is the
number one property crime in the
United States. The FBI estimates that in
calendar year 2000, there were
1,165,559 reported stolen vehicles with
an average value of $6,682; thus, the
total value of vehicles stolen was almost
$7.8 billion.16
III. Effectiveness of Parts Marking
A. Deterring Motor Vehicle Thefts
Parts marking deters motor vehicle
theft and aids theft investigators in
several ways. First, when a car is stolen,
as long as the marking on at least one
part remains intact, investigators can
more easily trace the car to its owner,
prove it was stolen, and make an arrest.
Second, motor vehicle theft
investigators in many jurisdictions have
been given the authority to seize parts
or vehicles when markings have been
damaged or removed. Third,
investigators in most jurisdictions treat
the absence of intact markings as a ‘‘red
flag’’ indicating a need for further
investigation. Fourth, in those
jurisdictions requiring inspections of
restored cars before they can be re-titled,
parts marking assists officers in
identifying vehicles that have been
reassembled using stolen parts.
Parts marking also aids in prosecuting
chop shop owners and dealers in stolen
vehicles and parts. The ease with which
thieves, operators of chop shops, and
dealers in stolen parts can be prosecuted
is a significant deterrent to motor
vehicle theft and the operation of chop
shops.
16 Federal Bureau of Investigation, ‘‘Crime in the
United States, 2000,’’ pp. 53 and 286. This report
can be found on the FBI website at http://
www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.

E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM

pfrm17

PsN: 26JNP1

43078

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Proposed Rules

NHTSA believes that parts marking
deters professional rather than nonprofessional motor vehicle thieves. Parts
marking allows law enforcement
agencies to identify stolen vehicles or
parts removed from stolen vehicles.
This makes it more difficult for
professional thieves to market stolen
vehicles and parts, and aids officials in
apprehending and prosecuting
professional thieves.
Parts marking probably does not deter
non-professional thieves who steal
motor vehicles to use for joyriding or
temporary transportation since these
thieves do not intend to re-sell the
vehicles or their parts. Non-professional
thieves probably are deterred more by
anti-theft devices (e.g., car alarms) that
make vehicles more difficult to steal.
Abt Associates conducted an analysis
of auto theft data to determine the
effectiveness of parts marking. NHTSA
provided Abt Associates with theft and
recovery data. NHTSA’s data came from
two principal sources: the FBI, which
reported automobile thefts, and R.J.
Polk, Inc., which provided data on car
registrations. Both data sets were
classified by model, model year, state,
and registration year from 1984 through
1995. Taken together, these two sets of
data yielded estimates of the automobile
theft rates for that time period.
NHTSA also provided Abt Associates
with information indicating which cars
were subject to the parts marking
requirements. Abt Associates
augmented these data by adding
information based on Census statistics
and FBI Uniform Crime Reports, and
analyzing data on automobile theft from
the National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS.)
Abt Associates’ best estimate is that
between 33 and 158 fewer cars are
stolen by professional thieves per
100,000 cars that were marked between
1987 and 1995. Abt Associates stated
that they were not confident that the
statistical analysis accurately estimated
the effect of parts marking for various
reasons. Nevertheless, Abt Associates
stated that the available evidence is
consistent with the conclusion that
parts marking does reduce automobile
theft, even if the size of the effect is
uncertain.
This finding is consistent with the
findings in NHTSA’s 1998 Report to
Congress. The agency was unable to
generate reliable quantitative estimates
of the effectiveness of parts marking.
However, the agency’s analysis found
several indications that parts marking
was having beneficial effects. For
example, the agency noted that for
model years 1986 and 1987, when the
parts marking requirements were

VerDate May<23>2002

11:03 Jun 25, 2002

Jkt 197001

introduced, cars with marked parts had
lower theft rates than expected, while
those with unmarked parts had higher
rates than expected.17
B. Cost of Parts Marking
The 1984 Theft Act limits the cost
that may be imposed by the parts
marking requirements to $15 per vehicle
(in 1984 dollars).18 However, the Act
permits the cost limit to be adjusted for
inflation, based on the Consumer Price
Index.19 The limit in 2000 dollars,
which NHTSA is using for purposes of
this proposed rule, is $24.86 per
vehicle.20
Based on a 1988 NHTSA study, the
agency estimated that the average cost of
parts marking was $4.14 per vehicle in
1988 dollars.21 This cost estimate took
into account overhead costs and profit,
but excluded the cost of marking
engines and transmissions, which were
marked prior to the 1984 Theft Act, and
thus not included in the statutory limit.
Based on the Consumer Price Index, the
agency estimates that the cost of parts
marking is $6.03 per vehicle, an amount
well within the statutory limit of $24.86.
In its 1998 Report to Congress,
discussed in greater detail below,
NHTSA estimated that in order to be
cost effective, parts marking would have
to reduce by two percent theft among
vehicles that were up to three years
old.22
IV. Agency Proposal
A. Expansion of the Parts Marking
Requirements
As noted above, the 1992 Theft Act
requires the Secretary of Transportation
to apply the parts marking requirements
to the remaining lines of passenger
motor vehicles (except light duty trucks)
unless the Attorney General finds in the
initial review that such a requirement
would not substantially inhibit chop
shop operations and motor vehicle
thefts. As noted above, after studying
the available evidence, the Attorney
General concluded that the evidence
17 The agency noted that this effect weakened as
the cars aged, probably because professional thieves
learned how to obliterate the markings and found
them less of a deterrent.
18 49 U.S.C. 33105(a).
19 49 U.S.C. 33105(c).
20 In setting this limit, Congress intended MPVs
and light duty trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds
or less to be included in the cost estimate for parts
marking motor vehicles, event though these
vehicles were excluded from the parts marking
requirements.
21 ‘‘Evaluation of Methods and Costs to Mark
Vehicle Parts for Theft Prevention: Volume 1’’
NHTSA, DOT HS 87, 616, September 1988.
22 Abt Associates concluded that the parts
marking requirements would be cost effective if
they prevented from 8 to 19 car thefts per 100,000
marked cars.

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

does not support a finding that requiring
motor vehicle manufacturers to mark
major parts in all motor vehicle lines
would not substantially inhibit chop
shop operations and motor vehicle
thefts and therefore found that the
standard should be extended.
Accordingly, the agency is proposing
that the parts marking requirement be
applied to all ‘‘remaining lines,’’ which
includes passenger cars and MPVs, but
not light duty trucks, with a GVWR of
6,000 pounds or less. Light duty trucks,
i.e., pickup trucks and cargo vans,
would continue to be subject to the
current procedures for selecting hightheft lines to be covered by the theft
prevention standard.
NHTSA notes that 49 CFR 542.2
provides procedures for selecting new
low theft vehicle lines with major parts
that are interchangeable with a majority
of the major parts of a high theft vehicle
line. These low theft vehicle lines with
interchangeable parts are subject to the
parts marking requirements.23
The agency specified this requirement
in a final rule mandated by the 1984
Theft Act, which provided:
Lines whose theft rate is or is likely to be
below the median theft rate, but whose major
component parts are interchangeable with a
majority of the major component parts of a
line that is subject to the theft prevention
standard * * *, are high theft lines * * *
However, car lines whose theft rate is or is
likely to be below the median theft rate will
not be treated as high theft lines * * * if
such low theft or likely low theft lines
account for greater than 90 percent of total
production of all lines containing such
interchangeable parts. (50 FR 34831, August
28, 1985).

In explaining the purpose of this
requirement, NHTSA stated:
Congress determined that, although certain
vehicles are not themselves from a high theft
line, the high degree of interchangeability of
their parts with those of a high theft line
would make these otherwise low theft
vehicles likely targets for car thieves. As
likely targets for car thieves, Congress
determined that all covered major parts on
these vehicles should be marked, not just
those that were interchangeable with the
covered major parts of the high theft line.
This will serve as an additional deterrent to
the theft of these vehicles. (50 FR 34835,
August 28, 1985).

NHTSA believes that under the
changes proposed in this document, a
similar situation could arise with MPV
23 These vehicle lines are listed in Appendix B to
Part 541—Passenger Motor Vehicle Lines (Except
Light Duty Trucks) With Theft Rates Below the
1990/91 Median Theft Rate, Subject to the
Requirements of this Standard. Only four lines are
listed in this table: Honda Civic, Ford Crown
Victoria, Chevrolet Astro (MPV), and GMC Safari
(MPV).

E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM

pfrm17

PsN: 26JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Proposed Rules
lines that have major parts
interchangeable with light duty truck
lines. The agency notes that passenger
vans and sports utility vehicles are
classified as MPVs while cargo vans and
pickup trucks are classified as light duty
trucks. The agency’s proposal would
expand the parts marking requirements
to all MPVs, but maintain the
requirement that only light duty trucks
that have been designated as high theft
lines be marked. Therefore, a passenger
van or sports utility vehicle line, which
is classified as an MPV, and thus would
have to be marked, could have major
parts interchangeable with a cargo van
or pickup truck line, which is classified
as a light duty truck, and thus would
not have to be marked if it were not
designated as a high theft line.
An example of this is the General
Motors Savana Van. There are two
classes of the Savana Van, a passenger
van version, which is classified as an
MPV, and a cargo van version, which is
classified as a light duty truck. Under
the agency’s proposal, the passenger van
version would have to be marked
because it is an MPV, while the cargo
van version would not have to be
marked, unless General Motors or
NHTSA designated it as a high theft
line.
Many of the major parts of these two
vans are identical. If the agency does not
require both versions to be marked, law
enforcement could be compromised. For
example, if police officers found a
fender from a Savana Van at a chop
shop, they would not be able to
determine whether it should have been
marked.
To address this problem, NHTSA is
proposing to add a new §542.3, modeled
on § 542.2.
The agency is proposing to exclude
low theft light duty truck lines that have
major parts that are interchangeable
with a majority of the covered major
parts of multipurpose passenger
vehicles if those light duty trucks
account for more than 90 percent of the
total production of all lines containing
those interchangeable parts. As noted
above, in the 1984 Theft Act Congress
specifically excluded vehicle lines that
are low theft but have major parts that
are interchangeable with a majority of
the covered parts of a high theft vehicle
line if the low theft line accounted for
more than 90 percent of the total
production of all lines containing those
interchangeable parts, and NHTSA
specifically excluded such vehicle lines
in the 1985 final rule establishing 49
CFR part 542.
NHTSA requests comment on the
number of light duty truck lines that
would have to be marked under this

VerDate May<23>2002

11:03 Jun 25, 2002

Jkt 197001

proposal because they have major parts
that are interchangeable with a majority
of the covered parts of a MPV. The
agency also requests comment on the
cost of extending the parts marking
requirements to all the vehicle lines
discussed above, and on the potential
effectiveness of parts marking in
deterring thefts of these vehicles.
NHTSA is proposing September 1,
2005 as the effective date for the new
rule. The agency believes that this
would provide enough lead-time to
allow manufacturers to mark new
vehicle lines and those vehicle lines
previously determined to be low-theft,
and thus not subject to the parts
marking requirements. Although
NHTSA believes that marking parts on
additional vehicle lines would not be
difficult, the agency believes that
manufacturers may need this lead-time
to buy additional parts-marking
equipment, determine vehicles’ target
areas for parts marking, and decide
whether to submit a petition for
exemption from the parts marking
requirements. The agency requests
comment on whether this is sufficient
lead-time for manufacturers.
B. Permanence of Markings
1. The 1984 Final Rule
When labels are used to comply with
the parts marking requirements, 49 CFR
Part 541 requires that the VIN or VIN
derivative be printed indelibly on the
label, and that the label be permanently
affixed to the part. If the label is
removed, it must self-destruct by tearing
or making the VIN illegible. Removing
the label also must alter the appearance
of the area where the label was affixed
so that evidence remains that a label
was originally there. Any attempts to
alter the number on a label must leave
traces of the original number.
NHTSA adopted these performance
requirements in the final rule
establishing the theft prevention
standard. (50 FR 43166, October 24,
1984). In the final rule, NHTSA noted
that several commenters, including law
enforcement agencies, suggested that the
agency mandate the use of a particular
marking system, such as stamping or
glass etching. The commenters asserted
that the use of a particular marking
system would ensure the greatest
effectiveness for the theft prevention
standard.
In response, the agency noted that it
did not have the authority to mandate
the use of any particular marking
system. Under the 1984 Theft Act, the
agency had authority only to establish
performance criteria that would
accomplish the purposes of the 1984

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

43079

Theft Act. This conclusion was based on
the legislative history of the 1984 Theft
Act. The agency quoted from page 10 of
the House Committee Report
accompanying the 1984 Theft Act:
The DOT will establish the tests or general
criteria which the identification must meet,
but not how it is to be inscribed or affixed.
That is the choice of each manufacturer. For
example, we understand that a tamperresistant label exists. If it can meet the
performance tests or general criteria
prescribed by the standard, the manufacturer
may choose to use it to comply with the
standard. (H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d
Sess., at 10 (1984), hereinafter cited as H.
Rept.). (50 FR 43166).

The House Committee Report
identified the following three essential
purposes for the 1984 Theft Act:
(1) To prevent thefts and reduce the ease
with which certain stolen vehicles and their
major parts can be fenced;
(2) To try to minimize regulation of the
domestic and foreign motor vehicle
manufacturing industry; and
(3) To give law enforcement officers at all
levels of government the much-needed
prosecutory tools to crack criminal theft rings
and related racketeering activities. H. Rept. at
2.

The agency believed that the
requirements of the theft prevention
standard, as written in the final rule,
would serve all of these purposes. The
standard required any markings affixed
to a part to be permanent, and removal
of the markings to discernibly alter the
appearance of that area of the part
where the label was affixed. In addition,
the agency noted that the 1984 Theft Act
made it a crime to possess a part from
which the identification number had
been removed,24 and the part was
subject to seizure and forfeiture.25 The
agency believed that those requirements
would help to deter thefts and reduce
the ease with which stolen vehicles and
their parts could be fenced. Further, by
allowing manufacturers to choose how
they would meet the performance
requirements, the agency believed that
the standard minimized regulation of
the motor vehicle manufacturing
industry. Finally, NHTSA believed that
the evidence left by the removal of
affixed markings gave law enforcement
officials prosecutorial tools to crack
theft rings.
2. The 1986 Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration
The agency also addressed this issue
in its response to petitions for
reconsideration of the final rule. In their
petitions, three law enforcement groups
objected to the absence of a requirement
24 18
25 18

E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM

U.S.C. 2320.
U.S.C. 512.

pfrm17

PsN: 26JNP1

43080

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Proposed Rules

that some of the required markings be
stamped into a part. The Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) requested the
agency to amend the final rule to require
the full VIN, or a derivative thereof, to
be stamped into a permanent metal part
of each vehicle. The International
Association of Auto Theft Investigators
(IAATI) and the Criminal Division of the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) asked
that the agency modify the final rule to
require that the markings be stamped
into the frame, engine, and
transmission.
The agency responded:
With respect to the request that the
markings be required to be stamped into
some covered major parts, NHTSA again
concludes that the clearly-expressed
Congressional intent would not allow the
agency to require explicitly that markings be
stamped into the parts. However, NHTSA
acknowledges that it could indirectly require
markings to be inscribed into some parts by
setting higher performance standards for
those parts. For instance, NHTSA could add
a performance standard for some parts that
the marking must be capable of being
restored to its original form by chemical
means, if the marking is altered or
obliterated. Such a requirement would force
manufacturers to inscribe the markings into
those parts, by etching, sandblasting,
stamping, and the like. However, NHTSA has
concluded that it would be premature to
impose such a requirement. (51 FR 8831,
March 14, 1986).

The agency concluded that it would
be premature to impose such a
requirement because there was not any
empirical evidence that affixed
markings complying with the
performance requirements in the final
rule would not adequately serve the
needs of law enforcement. However, the
agency stated, ‘‘If it becomes clear that
affixed markings are, in fact, not serving
the legitimate needs of law enforcement,
NHTSA will consider amending the
performance requirements of this theft
prevention standard.’’ (51 FR 8831,
March 14, 1986).
3. The 1998 Report to Congress
On June 26, 1997, NHTSA published
a preliminary version of its 1998 Report
to Congress on the effectiveness of the
parts marking requirements in the
Federal Register and requested
comments. (62 FR 34494, Docket No.
97–042, RIN 2127–AF55). Several
commenters, primarily law enforcement
agencies, recommended that the agency
require the markings to be more
permanent. The Iowa State Patrol
recommended that the agency require
all major parts to be stamped with the
VIN or a VIN derivative. The
Metropolitan Dade County (Florida)
Police Department and the Florida Auto

VerDate May<23>2002

11:03 Jun 25, 2002

Jkt 197001

Theft Intelligence Unit suggested a label
that, when removed, leaves a footprint
with the full VIN.
Vehicle manufacturers opposed more
permanent methods of parts marking.
The American Automobile
Manufacturer’s Association (AAMA),
whose members were Chrysler
Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and
General Motors Corporation, claimed
that requiring the stamping or inscribing
of the VIN into major vehicle parts
would result in a ‘‘substantial increase
in costs.’’ However, AAMA stated that
it had not had time to develop cost
estimates.
4. The 1999 Abt Associates’ Report to
the Attorney General
As part of its 1999 report to the
Attorney General, Abt Associates
conducted a survey of auto theft
investigators from 47 jurisdictions,
including 31 of the 32 largest cities in
the U.S. (plus Miami), six smaller
municipalities, and nine State agencies.
These jurisdictions include the majority
of jurisdictions with the highest auto
theft rates in the U.S. The investigators
reported that the most serious obstacle
to making more effective use of the parts
marking labels is that they are easy to
remove and, once removed, it is
impossible to prove that the parts are
stolen because the owner cannot be
traced.
5. The 2000 Attorney General’s Initial
Review
The DOJ published the Abt
Associates’ report in the Federal
Register and requested comments on
whether expanding the parts marking
requirements would be an effective
deterrent to motor vehicle thefts,
additional costs, and available
alternative factors.26 In the July 21, 2000
initial review, the Attorney General
noted:
The investigators surveyed
overwhelmingly supported more permanent
markings, as did those who commented in
response to the DOJ Notice * * * In fact,
investigators identified the lack of
permanence as the most significant obstacle
to increasing the effective use of markings.

Based on the Abt Associates survey
and these comments, the Attorney
General stated in the July 21, 2000
initial review, ‘‘I have concluded that
permanence is at the heart of any
effective marking system, and therefore
I urge DOT to require permanent, nonremovable markings.’’ However, the
Attorney General did not suggest any
specific requirements or methods for
more permanent markings.

6. Questions on More Permanent
Methods of Parts Marking
Based on the comments of law
enforcement agencies to both NHTSA’s
preliminary version of its 1998 Report to
Congress,27 the Abt Associates report to
the Attorney General,28 and the
Attorney General’s initial review, it
appears that the current parts marking
requirements are not meeting the
legitimate needs of law enforcement.
Accordingly, NHTSA is considering
proposing to adopt performance
requirements that would necessitate the
use of more permanent methods of parts
marking. NHTSA is not including any
such proposals in this document
because the agency needs more
information to aid it in formulating
specific proposals. To obtain that
information, the agency has set out a
series of questions below.
The first several questions are similar
to questions that the agency asked when
it published the preliminary version of
its 1998 Report to Congress.29 The
agency received little specific
information on more permanent parts
marking methods and their costs. The
agency believes that ample time has
passed since then for law enforcement
agencies, vehicle and label
manufacturers, and other organizations
to provide more specific answers to
these questions. NHTSA also believes
that answers to these questions will aid
the agency in determining what
additional performance requirements
and test procedures would be effective
and appropriate. Thus, the agency is
asking these questions again.
1. Are there more permanent methods
of parts marking that can be
accomplished within the
Congressionally mandated cost limit of
$24.86 (in 2000 dollars) per vehicle?
2. Please include documentation on
the markings method, how permanent
the markings are (how difficult it is to
remove the markings and what evidence
is likely to remain after removal that
there were markings), and cost
estimates, including the cost of any
materials, equipment, tooling, and labor.
If the application of performance
requirements necessitating the use of
more permanent methods were limited
so that they applied to only some of the
parts required to be marked, which parts
should be marked by those methods and
how much cost could be saved.
3. Please identify the economic year
for the cost estimates.
4. Please describe how the markings
are applied using the more permanent
27 62

FR 34493, June 26, 1997.
FR 48785, September 11, 1998.
29 62 FR 34493, June 26, 1997.
28 63

26 63

PO 00000

FR 48758, September 11, 1998.

Frm 00036

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM

pfrm17

PsN: 26JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Proposed Rules
methods, including the time needed to
mark all the major vehicle parts.
In addition, the agency requests
answers to the following new questions:
5. Are more permanent methods of
parts marking necessary?30 Please
provide empirical evidence, i.e.,
evidence that labels have been removed
from stolen vehicles and parts, and that
enforcement efforts have been
compromised as a result. How common
a problem is this? Please document your
answer to the extent possible.
6. As discussed above, NHTSA does
not have the authority to adopt a
requirement that expressly identifies a
specific method of parts marking, such
as stamping or etching, and mandate it.
However, it can adopt performance
requirements that have the effect of
requiring a particular method or
methods. With that in mind, what
objective performance requirements and
test procedures would be effective and
appropriate for requiring more
permanent methods of parts marking?
7. How would these performance
requirements and test procedures ensure
that insufficiently permanent parts
marking methods would be disallowed?
NHTSA will use the answers to these
questions in deciding whether to issue
a separate proposal for new performance
requirements and test procedures.
C. Marking Air Bags and Window
Glazing
Currently, air bags and window
glazing are not classified as major parts
subject to the parts marking
requirements.
The agency’s latest data show that
65.5 million passenger cars are
equipped with frontal air bags (51.6
million with dual air bags, and 13.9
million with only a driver-side air bag);
40.3 million light trucks and MPVs are
equipped with frontal air bags (28.7
million with dual air bags, and 11.6
million with only a driver-side air bag);
3.2 million passenger cars are equipped
with side air bags; and 1.3 million light
trucks and MPVs are equipped with side
air bags.
The National Insurance Crime Bureau
reports that approximately 50,000 air
bags are stolen each year, resulting in an
annual loss of more than $50 million to
vehicle owners and their insurers. The
cost to replace air bag modules ranges
30 NHTSA considers the comments of a law
enforcement agencies discussed above to be
sufficient evidence for the agency to consider
requiring more permanent methods of parts
marking. However, before issuing a proposed rule
specifying additional performance reqirements, the
agency would like empirical evidence that current
methods of parts marking are insufficient to meet
the needs of law enforcement agencies.

VerDate May<23>2002

11:03 Jun 25, 2002

Jkt 197001

from $500 to $1,500. The agency is
particularly concerned by thefts of air
bags because they are an important
piece of safety equipment. The agency
believes that marking air bags could aid
in parts recovery and for use as
evidence of vehicle theft.
The agency does not believe that
window glazing theft is a widespread
problem. Window glazing markings are
not for the purpose of preventing
glazing from being stolen, but for the
purpose of deterring vehicle theft,
especially theft and retag operations.
The agency believes that marking
glazing could provide additional
identification of motor vehicles and
their replacement parts, as well as
providing an additional deterrent to
theft of the entire vehicle.
Both the 1998 NHTSA Report to
Congress and the 1999 Abt Associates
report addressed the issue of expanding
the parts marking requirements to cover
additional parts. Results of Abt’s survey
of auto theft investigators indicate that
almost all investigators would like the
parts marking requirements expanded to
cover additional parts. Several
commenters on NHTSA’s preliminary
version of its 1998 Report to Congress
supported extending parts marking to
air bags and window glazing. Law
enforcement agencies and consumer
organizations favored subjecting air bags
and window glazing to the parts
marking requirements. The Florida
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Authority stated:
Theft of air bags is a significant problem,
and there are few tools that exist to assist the
auto theft investigator in identifying stolen
air bags, and more importantly, in being able
to prosecute individuals for the purchase and
sale of stolen air bags.

The Metropolitan Dade County
(Florida) Police Department asserted:
Window etching is another visible marking
that needs to be placed on all vehicles at the
factory. Window etching acts as a deterrent
and an investigative tool. Chop shop
operations have had to replace all of the glass
on stolen vehicles. Many times this changing
of glass is readily identifiable to auto theft
investigators. Numerous times, thieves have
left windows with the original VIN etched on
while altering the rest of the vehicle.

Vehicle manufacturers opposed
subjecting air bags and window glazing
to the parts marking requirements.
Toyota claimed that requiring window
glazing to be marked would result in
‘‘additional and unreasonable labor
costs to coordinate the marking numbers
of the glazing materials with their
respective vehicles, all without any
demonstrable benefit.’’ The AAMA
stated that there are serious problems

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

43081

with marking air bag modules for the
following reasons:
Modules are not designated for a specific
vehicle prior to installation in the vehicle.
Stamping of the air bag housing as a separate
part prior to assembly of the air bag is not
practicable. In addition, stamping the air bag
module at the vehicle assembly plant is also
not practicable due to the inherent risk of
damage to the module, plus the risk of
accidental deployment.

Based on the effectiveness of parts
marking in reducing thefts of vehicles
and major parts, NHTSA believes that
classifying air bags and glazing as major
parts subject to the parts marking
requirements could deter air bag and
vehicle thefts and aid law enforcement
agencies in apprehending and
prosecuting the thieves. However, the
agency currently does not have the
statutory authority to subject air bags
and window glazing to the parts
marking requirements.31 Nevertheless,
the agency is requesting comments on
the potential costs and benefits of
marking air bags and window glazing
and whether the agency should pursue
the statutory authority. The agency
requests comment on the following
questions:
8. What information exists regarding
the frequency with which the absence of
marking requirements for air bags and
glazing compromises law enforcement?
9. Assuming that the agency had the
necessary authority, would it be
sufficient if the agency required the
marking of only specified glazing, e.g.,
the front and rear windshield glazing,
instead of all glazing in a vehicle? If so,
which glazing should be specified?
10. How would such a limitation
affect the costs of glazing marking?
11. Would marking air bags with the
VIN of a specific vehicle be practicable
given that they are not designated for a
specific vehicle prior to installation?
12. Assuming that the agency had the
necessary authority, should the agency
require the marking of only frontal air
bags, or all air bags, i.e., frontal, side,
and side head air bags?
Please provide a rationale with
evidence to support any
recommendations.
D. Exemptions
The agency notes that this proposed
rule would have no effect on
exemptions from the parts marking
31 49 U.S.C. 33101(6) defines major parts as the
engine, transmission, doors, hood, grille, bumpers,
front fender, deck lid, tailgate, hatchback, rear
quarter panels, truck floor pan, frame, and any other
part of a vehicle that NHTSA specifies as
comparable in design or function to any of the
specified parts. The agency believes that neither air
bags nor window glazing are comparable in design
or function to any of the specified parts.

E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM

pfrm17

PsN: 26JNP1

43082

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Proposed Rules

requirements. Currently, 49 U.S.C.
33104(d) provides that once a line has
been designated as likely high-theft, it
remains subject to the parts marking
requirements unless it is exempted
under section 33106.32 Under § 33106,
vehicle manufacturers may petition the
agency to have a high-theft line
exempted from the parts marking
requirements, if the line is equipped
with an anti-theft device as standard
equipment. The exemption is granted if
NHTSA determines that the anti-theft
device is likely to be as effective as
compliance with the parts marking
requirements in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle thefts.
Under section 33106(2),
manufacturers were permitted up to two
new exemptions per model year for the
model years 1988–1996. For the model
years 1997–2000, manufacturers were
permitted only one new exemption per
model year. After the model year 2000,
the number of new exemptions is
contingent on findings by the Attorney
General.
As discussed earlier in this document,
the statute requires the Attorney General
to submit two reports, an initial review
of the effectiveness of parts marking,33
and a long-range review of the
effectiveness of parts marking.34 As part
of the long-range review, the Attorney
General must determine whether the
anti-theft devices for which NHTSA
grants exemptions ‘‘are an effective
substitute for parts marking in
substantially inhibiting motor vehicle
theft.’’35 Thus, the Attorney General
must decide whether NHTSA should
continue granting exemptions, and, if
so, the number of exemptions the
agency may grant per model year.
To date, the Attorney General has
submitted only the initial review, not
the long-range review.36 Therefore, the
Attorney General has not yet decided
whether the exemptions should
continue.
In the absence of this review, NHTSA
faced the question of whether Congress
intended to terminate the exemption
authority after model year 2000, or
whether it intended the exemptions to
be continued pending the Attorney
General’s decision. After consulting
with the Department of Justice, the
agency determined that the appropriate
reading of the statute is that NHTSA
may continue to grant one new
32 NHTSA’s regulations implementing the statute
are located at 49 CFR Part 543, Exemptions from
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.
33 49 U.S.C. 33103(c).
34 49 U.S.C. 33103(d).
35 49 U.S.C. 33103(d)(1)(B).
36 As noted above, the initial review was
submitted to NHTSA on July 21, 2000.

VerDate May<23>2002

11:03 Jun 25, 2002

Jkt 197001

exemption per model year as specified
by the statute for model years 1997–
2000, pending the Attorney General’s
decision. Thus, the agency has
continued to such exemptions.
This proposed rule would not affect
these exemptions. Manufacturers would
still be allowed to petition the agency to
exempt one new line each model year,
if the line is equipped with an anti-theft
device as standard equipment. NHTSA
will revisit this issue when the Attorney
General submits the long-range review
to the agency.
E. Small Volume Manufacturers
Currently, there are approximately 4
vehicle manufacturers that qualify as
small businesses under the Small
Business Administration’s regulations.
Because of their small sales volumes,
these manufacturers’ vehicles have not
been subject to the theft prevention
standard. Extending the theft prevention
standard to all passenger cars and MPVs
will require these manufacturers to
comply with the standard for the first
time.
There are fixed costs associated with
parts marking. With large vehicle
manufacturers, these fixed costs are
spread out over such large numbers of
vehicles as to be insignificant. However,
with small vehicle manufacturers, these
fixed costs would be spread out over a
much smaller number of vehicles.
The agency estimates that the total
costs for any vehicle manufacturer that
makes fewer than 373 vehicles for sale
in the U.S. per year would exceed the
statutory limit of $24.86 per vehicle.
Thus, the agency is proposing to
exclude small volume manufacturers,
i.e., those who make fewer than 500
vehicles for sale in the U.S. each year,
from the expansion of the theft
prevention standard proposed in this
document.
The agency requests comment on this
issue.
V. Costs and Benefits
Following is a summary of the
estimated costs and benefits associated
with this proposed rule. For a more
detailed analysis, see the agency’s
Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation
(PRE). A copy of the PRE has been
placed in the docket.
A. Costs
NHTSA estimates that the cost of
parts marking in 2000 dollars is $6.03
per vehicle. The agency estimates that
the proposed rule would subject an
additional 3.25 million vehicles per
year 37 to the parts marking
37 This includes the agency’s estimate of the light
duty truck lines that would have to be marked

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

requirements. Thus, the total annual
cost would be $19.6 million (3.25
million vehicles × $6.03 per vehicle).
In addition, the agency notes that
each replacement part for a part
required to be marked must be marked
with the manufacturer’s registered
trademark, or some other unique
identifier, and the letter ‘‘R.’’ Under this
proposal, the parts of 3.25 million
additional vehicles would have to be
marked. NHTSA does not know the
number of replacement parts sold each
year for 3.25 million vehicles. However,
the agency estimates the cost of marking
a replacement part to be $0.50 per part.
B. Benefits
In calendar year 2000, there were
1,165,559 reported stolen vehicles with
an average value of $6,682; thus, the
total value of vehicles stolen was almost
$7.8 billion.38 The value of unrecovered
passenger cars and light duty trucks
subject to the parts marking
requirements was $2.756 billion.
NHTSA estimates that 22 percent of
vehicle thefts are of vehicles that are not
being marked currently but would be
required to be marked under this
proposed rule. The agency estimates
that the proposed rule would result in
a 6.4 percent reduction in the economic
loss for unrecovered thefts. Thus, the
agency estimates that the value of thefts
that could be reduced by this proposal
is $38.8 million ($2.756 billion × 22
percent × 6.4 percent).
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), provides for making
determinations whether a regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and to the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
because they have major parts that are
interchangeable with a majority of the covered
major parts of a MPV line.
38 Federal Bureau of Investigation, ‘‘Crime in the
United States, 2000,’’ pp. 53 and 286. This report
can be found on the FBI website at http://
www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.

E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM

pfrm17

PsN: 26JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Proposed Rules
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
This rulemaking document was not
reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
It is not significant within the meaning
of the DOT’s Regulatory Policies and
Procedures. However, the agency has
prepared a Preliminary Regulatory
Evaluation (PRE) for this proposed rule.
A copy of the PRE has been placed in
the docket.
This mandated regulatory action
would extend the parts marking
requirements to all passenger cars and
multipurpose passenger vehicles (but
not light duty trucks) with a GVWR of
6,000 pounds or less. The agency
estimates that this regulatory action
would extend the parts marking
requirements to approximately 3.25
million vehicles each year, and the
replacement parts for those vehicles.
The agency estimates that the cost of
parts marking is $6.03 per vehicle (in
2000 dollars). Thus, the annual cost
would be $19.6 million.
The agency also estimates that the
cost of marking replacement parts is
$0.50 per part. The agency does not
know how many replacement parts are
sold each year for 3.25 million vehicles.
However, since the cost of marking
replacement parts is only $0.50, the
agency does not believe that the total
cost of marking replacement parts
would be substantial. Thus, the agency
tentatively concludes that this
regulatory action would have less than
a $100 million annual effect on the
economy.

No regulatory flexibility analysis is
required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal
agencies to provide a statement of the
factual basis for certifying that a rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
NHTSA has considered the effect of
this proposed rule under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. As noted above, this
proposed rule would extend the parts
marking requirements to approximately
3.25 million additional vehicles per
year, and to the replacement parts for
those vehicles. This proposed
requirement would affect manufacturers
of vehicles and replacement parts.
As noted above, the agency is
proposing to exclude manufacturers that
make fewer than 500 vehicles for sale in
the U.S. each year from the theft
prevention standard.
The agency has no information on the
number of small manufacturers of
replacement parts. However, since
NHTSA estimates that the cost of
marking replacement parts is only $0.50
per part, the agency believes that this
proposed rule would not have a
significant impact on these
manufacturers.
Based on this analysis, I certify that
this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996), whenever an agency is required
to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public
comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of the
rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions). The
Small Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a
small business, in part, as a business
entity ‘‘which operates primarily within
the United States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)).

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 requires
NHTSA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’ Under
Executive Order 13132, the agency may
not issue a regulation with Federalism
implications, that imposes substantial

VerDate May<23>2002

11:03 Jun 25, 2002

Jkt 197001

C. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking
action for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency
has determined that implementation of
this proposed rule would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

43083

direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs
incurred by State and local
governments, the agency consults with
State and local governments, or the
agency consults with State and local
officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
NHTSA also may not issue a regulation
with Federalism implications and that
preempts State law unless the agency
consults with State and local officials
early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.
The agency has analyzed this
proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria set forth in
Executive Order 13132 and has
determined that it would not have
sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and
local officials or the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement.
The proposal would not have any
substantial effects on the States, or on
the current Federal-State relationship,
or on the current distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various
local officials.
E. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed amendment would not
have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 33118, whenever a Federal motor
vehicle theft prevention standard is in
effect, a State or political subdivision of
a State may not adopt or maintain a
different theft prevention standard for a
motor vehicle or replacement part. 49
U.S.C. 32909 sets forth a procedure for
judicial review of final rules
establishing, amending, or revoking
Federal motor vehicle theft prevention
standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for
reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit
in court.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless the
collection displays a valid OMB control
number. The current parts marking
requirements in 49 CFR part 541 are
considered a ‘‘collection of
information,’’ as that term is defined by
OMB in 5 CFR part 1320. The OMB
control number for those information
collection requirements is 2127–0510. If
adopted, this proposed rule would
expand the parts marking requirements
in 49 CFR part 541 to all passenger cars
and multipurpose passenger vehicle
lines with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or

E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM

pfrm17

PsN: 26JNP1

43084

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Proposed Rules

less, and low theft light duty truck lines
with major parts that are
interchangeable with a majority of the
covered major parts of multipurpose
passenger vehicle lines.
NHTSA has determined that, if made
final, this proposed rule would impose
new collection of information burdens
within the meaning of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Under the
PRA, before an agency submits a
proposed collection of information to
OMB for approval, it must 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
regulations, (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an
agency must ask for public comment on
the following:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) how to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(iv) 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 public
comment on the collection of
information proposed in this notice of
proposed rulemaking. Interested
persons may obtain a copy of the draft
justification statement by contacting
Walter Culbreath, NHTSA Information
Collection Clearance Officer at (202)
366–1566. A copy of the draft
justification statement will also be
available at the docket number cited in
the heading of this notice. Comments
must be received on or before August
26, 2002.
Consolidated Labeling Requirements
for 49 CFR parts 565, 541, and 567
Type of Request: Revision of a
currently approved clearance.
OMB Clearance Number: 2127–0510.
Form Number: This proposed
collection of information would not use
any standard forms.

VerDate May<23>2002

17:14 Jun 25, 2002

Jkt 197001

Requested Expiration Date of
Approval: Three years from the date of
approval of the collection.
Summary of the Collection of
Information: Pursuant to a statutory
mandate, NHTSA proposes that the
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard, which presently requires
specified parts of high-theft vehicles to
be marked with vehicle identification
numbers (VINs), be extended to include
all passenger cars and multipurpose
passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less,
and to light duty trucks with major parts
that are interchangeable with a majority
of the covered major parts of
multipurpose passenger vehicles.
Description of the Need for the
Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: The identification of major
parts (such as the engine, transmission,
fenders, doors) of motor vehicle lines is
designed to decrease automobile theft
by making it more difficult for criminals
to ‘‘chop’’ vehicles into component
parts and then fence such parts. The
parts marking information aids law
enforcement officials at all levels of
government in the investigation of
‘‘chop shops’’ by creating evidence for
prosecution of the operators for the
possession of stolen motor vehicle parts.
If the information were not available,
the legislative goal of a comprehensive
scheme against automobile theft would
be frustrated. The Theft Prevention
Standard would not effectively deter
‘‘chop shop’’ operators because law
enforcement officials could not readily
identify parts in the operators’
possession as stolen. Also, without parts
marking, when stolen parts are
recovered, the parts could not be easily
traced back to the owner and returned
to the owner or insurer.
Description of the Likely Respondents
(Including Estimated Number, and
Proposed Frequency of Response to the
Collection of Information: NHTSA
estimates 30 single and multi-stage
motor vehicle manufacturers
(manufacturers of passenger cars and
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000
pounds or less, and of light duty trucks
with major parts that are
interchangeable with a majority of the
covered major parts of multipurpose
passenger vehicles) would be affected
by this proposed collection of
information. Each manufacturer would
be required to mark the 14 major parts
of the motor vehicle it manufactures
once, at the time the motor vehicle is
manufactured.
Estimate of the Total Annual
Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Information: The total annual reporting
burden on motor vehicle manufacturers
is estimated as follows:
Estimate of Number of Affected
Vehicles: At present, 9.3 million
vehicles are high theft lines whose parts
must be marked. If this proposed rule is
made final, an additional 3.25 million
vehicles would have their major parts
marked, making a total of 12.55 million
cars to be marked.
Estimates of Burden Hours: The cost
of labeling the major parts (i.e., a paper
label with the VIN is placed on each
major part) is less than the cost of
stamping the VIN on each major part
with a stamping machine. To meet the
Theft Prevention Standard, the agency
estimates that the time to number and
affix each label to a major part is .2
minutes. Thus, the time required to
label each vehicle is approximately 2.8
minutes (14 parts × .2 minutes). The
additional hourly burden for labeling
that would result if this proposed rule
is made final is estimated to be 151,666
hours (3.25 million cars × 2.8 minutes
per car/60 minutes in an hour). This
figure of 151,666 hours would be added
to the existing 456,212 hours resulting
from the costs of marking high theft
lines. If this proposed rule is made final,
the hourly burden for labeling all
affected motor vehicles would be
607,878 hours.
Estimates of Cost Burden: The agency
estimates that the average cost in Year
2000 dollars (the latest year for which
figures are available) to label the 14
parts is $6.03 per vehicle, broken down
into $3.14 for material and $2.89 for
labor. At present, 9.3 million high theft
motor vehicles annually must have their
major parts marked. At present, the total
annual fleet costs are estimated at
$56.08 million for label identifiers
($6.03 × 9.3 million vehicles). If this
proposed rule is made final, the
additional annual cost burden to
industry is estimated at $19.6 million
($6.03 × 3.25 million vehicles). If this
proposed rule is made final, the cost of
labeling all affected motor vehicles
would be $75.68 million.
Reductions in Hours and Cost
Burdens in Other Theft Program
Collections: NHTSA also has a clearance
to collect information pursuant to 49
CFR part 542, Procedures for Selecting
Lines to be Covered Under the Theft
Prevention Standard (OMB Clearance
No. 5157–0539) for 640 burden hours,
and 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard
(OMB Clearance No. 5157–0542) for 64
burden hours.
If this proposed rule is made final, the
part 542 procedure for manufacturers to
make high theft/low theft

E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM

pfrm17

PsN: 26JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Proposed Rules
determinations of new passenger car
and multipurpose passenger vehicle
lines, and part 543 procedure for
exemptions from parts marking for high
theft passenger car and multipurpose
passenger car lines would no longer be
applicable. Part 542 and 543 procedures
would then apply only to light trucks.
NHTSA estimates that light trucks make
up at most 25 percent of total new
passenger car, multipurpose passenger
vehicle, and light truck sales. For Theft
Prevention Standard purposes, sport
utility vehicles for the most part are
classified as multipurpose passenger
vehicles, because they are designed to
carry passengers (See 49 CFR 541.4(5)).
Thus, NHTSA estimates that if this
proposed rule is made final, the
collection of information burden
associated with part 542 would be
reduced by 75 percent (since new
passenger cars and multipurpose
passenger vehicles would be excluded),
and would decline from 640 hours to
160 hours. NHTSA estimates that if this
proposed rule is made final, the
collection of information burden
associated with part 543 would be
reduced by 75 percent, and would
decline from 64 hours to 26 hours.
G. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs NHTSA to use voluntary
consensus standards in regulatory
activities unless doing so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies, such as the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE). The
NTTAA directs NHTSA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
There are no applicable voluntary
consensus standards available at this
time.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits,
and other effects of proposed or final
rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by
State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
more than $100 million in any one year
(adjusted for inflation with base year of

VerDate May<23>2002

17:14 Jun 25, 2002

Jkt 197001

1995). Before promulgating a rule for
which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires NHTSA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objective of the rule. The provisions
of section 205 do not apply when they
are inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows NHTSA to
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the agency
publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was
not adopted.
If adopted, this proposed rule would
not result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
more than $100 million annually.
I. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write all rules in plain
language. Application of the principles
of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
—Has the agency organized the material
to suit the public’s needs?
—Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated?
—Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that is not clear?
—Would a different format (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing) make the rule easier to
understand?
—Would more (but shorter) sections be
better?
—Could the agency improve clarity by
adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
—What else could the agency do to
make this rulemaking easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these
questions, please include them in your
comments on this NPRM.
J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. You may use the RIN contained in
the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
Comments
How do I prepare and submit
comments?
Your comments must be written and
in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

43085

Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your
comments.
Your comments must not be more
than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
NHTSA established this limit to
encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion.
However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your
comments. There is no limit on the
length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your
comments, including the attachments,
to Docket Management at the address
given above under ADDRESSES.
You may also submit your comments
to the docket electronically by logging
onto the Dockets Management System
website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on
‘‘Help & Information’’ or ‘‘Help/Info’’ to
obtain instructions for filing the
document electronically.
How can I be sure that my comments
were received?
If you wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your
comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope
containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by
mail.
How do I submit confidential business
information?
If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, you
should submit three copies of your
complete submission, including the
information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you
have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket
Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a
comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business
information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR part
512.)
Will the agency consider late
comments?
NHTSA will consider all comments
that Docket Management receives before
the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above under
DATES. To the extent possible, the
agency will also consider comments that
Docket Management receives after that

E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM

pfrm17

PsN: 26JNP1

43086

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Proposed Rules

date. If Docket Management receives a
comment too late for the agency to
consider it in developing a final rule
(assuming that one is issued), the
agency will consider that comment as
an informal suggestion for future
rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted
by other people?
You may read the comments received
by Docket Management at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The
hours of the Docket are indicated above
in the same location.
You may also see the comments on
the Internet. To read the comments on
the Internet, take the following steps:
1. Go to the Docket Management
System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (http://
dms.dot.gov/).
2. On that page, click on ‘‘search.’’
3. On the next page (http://
dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the fourdigit docket number shown at the
beginning of this document. Example: If
the docket number were ‘‘NHTSA–
1998–1234,’’ you would type ‘‘1234.’’
After typing the docket number, click on
‘‘search.’’
4. On the next page, which contains
docket summary information for the
docket you selected, click on the desired
comments. You may download the
comments. Although the comments are
imaged documents, instead of word
processing documents, the ‘‘pdf’’
versions of the documents are word
searchable.
Please note that even after the
comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available.
Further, some people may submit late
comments. Accordingly, the agency
recommends that you periodically
check the Docket for new material.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 541
Administrative practice and
procedure, Labeling, Motor vehicles,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
49 CFR Part 542
Administrative practice and
procedure, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Reporting
requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
Chapter V as follows:

VerDate May<23>2002

17:14 Jun 25, 2002

Jkt 197001

PART 541—FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE THEFT PREVENTION
STANDARD

§ 542.3 Procedures for selecting low theft
light duty truck lines with a majority of
major parts interchangeable with those of a
multipurpose passenger vehicle line.

1. The authority citation for part 541
would continue to read as follows:

(a) Scope. This section sets forth the
procedures for motor vehicle
manufacturers and NHTSA to follow in
the determination of whether any light
duty truck lines that have or are likely
to have a low theft rate have major parts
interchangeable with a majority of the
covered major parts of a multipurpose
passenger vehicle line.
(b) Application. These procedures
apply to:
(1) Each manufacturer that
produces—
(i) At least one multipurpose
passenger vehicle line that has been or
will be introduced into commerce in the
United States, and
(ii) At least one light duty truck line
that has been or will be introduced into
commerce in the United States and that
the manufacturer identifies as likely to
have a theft rate below the median theft
rate; and
(2) Each of those likely submedian
theft rate light duty truck lines.
(c) Procedures. (1) For each light duty
truck line that a manufacturer identifies
under appendix C of part 541 of this
chapter as having or likely to have a
theft rate below the median rate, the
manufacturer identifies how many and
which of the major parts of that line will
be interchangeable with the covered
major parts of any of its multipurpose
passenger vehicle lines.
(2) If the manufacturer concludes that
a light duty truck line that has or is
likely to have a theft rate below the
median theft rate has major parts that
are interchangeable with a majority of
the covered major parts of a
multipurpose passenger vehicle line, the
manufacturer determines whether all
the vehicles of those lines with
submedian or likely submedian theft
rates and interchangeable parts will
account for more than 90 percent of the
total annual production of all of the
manufacturer’s lines with those
interchangeable parts.
(3) The manufacturer submits its
evaluations and conclusions made
under paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section, together with the underlying
factual information, to NHTSA not less
than 15 months before the date of
introduction. During this period, the
manufacturer may request a meeting
with the agency to further explain the
bases for its evaluations and
conclusions.
(4) Within 90 days after its receipt of
the manufacturer’s submission under
paragraph (c)(3) of this section, NHTSA
considers that submission, if any, and

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33101, 33102, 33103,
33105; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 541.3 would be revised to
read as follows:
§ 541.3

Application.

This standard applies to the
following:
(a) Passenger motor vehicle parts
identified in § 541.5(a) that are present:
(1) In passenger cars and
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000
pounds or less; and
(2) In light duty trucks that NHTSA
has finally determined, pursuant to 49
CFR part 542, to be high theft based on
the 1990/91 median theft rate.
(b) Replacement parts for passenger
motor vehicles described in § 541.3(a)(1)
and (2), if the part is identified in
§ 541.5(a).
(c) This standard does not apply to
passenger motor vehicle parts that are
present in passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, and light duty
trucks manufactured by a motor vehicle
manufacturer that manufactures fewer
than 500 vehicles for sale in the United
States each year.
Appendix A to Part 541 [Removed]
3. Appendix A to Part 541—Lines
Subject to the Requirements of This
Standard would be removed.
4. Section 541.5 would be amended
by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (e)(2) as follows:
§ 541.5 Requirements for passenger motor
vehicles.

*

*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) Each manufacturer subject to
paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall, not
later than 30 days before the line is
introduced into commerce, inform
NHTSA in writing of the target areas
designated for each line subject to this
standard. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
PART 542—PROCEDURES FOR
SELECTING LINES TO BE COVERED
BY THE THEFT PREVENTION
STANDARD
5. The authority citation for part 542
would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2021, 2022, and 2023;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

6. Section 542.3 would be added to
read as follows:

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM

pfrm17

PsN: 26JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2002 / Proposed Rules
independently makes, on a preliminary
basis, the determinations of those light
duty truck lines with submedian or
likely submedian theft rates which
should or should not be subject to
§ 541.5 of this chapter. NHTSA informs
the manufacturer by letter of the
agency’s preliminary determinations,
together with the factual information
considered by the agency in making
them.
(5) The manufacturer may request the
agency to reconsider any of its
preliminary determinations made under
paragraph (c)(4) of this section. The
manufacturer must submit its request to

VerDate May<23>2002

11:03 Jun 25, 2002

Jkt 197001

the agency within 30 days of its receipt
of the letter under paragraph (c)(4) of
this section informing it of the agency’s
evaluations and preliminary
determinations. The request must
include the facts and arguments
underlying the manufacturer’s
objections to the agency’s preliminary
determinations. During this 30-day
period, the manufacturer may also
request a meeting with the agency to
discuss those objections.
(6) Each of the agency’s preliminary
determinations made under paragraph
(c)(4) of this section becomes final 45
days after the agency sends the letter

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

43087

specified in that paragraph unless a
request for reconsideration has been
received in accordance with paragraph
(c)(5) of this section. If such a request
has been received, the agency makes its
final determinations within 60 days of
its receipt of the request. NHTSA
informs the manufacturer by letter of
those determinations and its response to
the request for reconsideration.
Issued: June 18, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety
Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 02–15903 Filed 6–25–02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM

pfrm17

PsN: 26JNP1