Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention; Exemption From Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 543

[Docket No. 93-46; Notice 2]

RIN 2127-AE66

Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention; Exemption From Vehicle Theft

Prevention Standard

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the agency regulation on exempting high

theft motor vehicle lines from parts marking by limiting the number of

high theft lines that may be exempted. For each model year through

model year 1996, a manufacturer may petition for exemptions for up to

two additional lines of its passenger motor vehicles. For the four year

period that begins with model year 1997 and ends with model year 2000,

a manufacturer may petition for an exemption for one additional line of

its passenger motor vehicles for each year. This final rule conforms

the regulation to amendments made by the ``Anti Car Theft Act of 1992''

to Title VI (``Theft Prevention'') of the Motor Vehicle Information and

Cost Savings Act.

DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective on April 7, 1994.

Petitions for Reconsideration: Any petitions for reconsideration of

this rule must be received by NHTSA no later than April 7, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this rule should refer to

the docket number and notice number cited in the heading of this notice

and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Barbara A. Gray, Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Gray's telephone number is (202)

366-1740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

1. Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984

The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-

547) (Theft Act), added title VI to the Motor Vehicle Information and

Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act). Pursuant to title VI, NHTSA

promulgated 49 CFR part 541, titled ``Federal Motor Vehicle Theft

Prevention Standard'' (Theft Prevention Standard). Part 541 establishes

performance requirements for inscribing or affixing vehicle

identification numbers onto certain major original equipment and

replacement parts of high theft lines of passenger motor vehicles.

Section 605 of title VI permits manufacturers to petition NHTSA to

exempt high theft vehicle lines from the Theft Prevention Standard. To

be exempted, a high theft line must satisfy two conditions. First, a

line must be equipped with an antitheft device as standard equipment on

the entire line for which its manufacturer seeks an exemption. Second,

NHTSA must determine that such antitheft device is likely to be as

effective as parts marking in reducing and deterring motor vehicle

theft. As originally enacted, section 605 allowed the agency to grant

an exemption for not more than two lines of any manufacturer for the

initial model year (model year 1987) to which the vehicle theft

prevention standard applies, and two additional lines of any

manufacturer for each subsequent model year.

Regulations governing the granting of exemptions are set forth in

49 CFR part 543, ``Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.''

Part 543 sets out procedures for manufacturers to follow in preparing

and submitting petitions for exemption from the parts marking

requirements of part 541. It also sets forth procedures for NHTSA to

follow in processing those petitions and determining whether they

should be granted.

2. Anti Car Theft Act of 1992

The ``Anti Car Theft Act of 1992'' (ACTA), which became law on

October 25, 1992, amended title VI of the Cost Savings Act. Title VI

was amended to redefine ``passenger motor vehicle'' to include ``any

multipurpose passenger vehicle and light-duty truck that is rated at

6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight or less.'' (See section 601(1) of

title VI.) Before the amendment of title VI, ``passenger motor

vehicle'' was defined to include passenger cars only.

The redefinition means that certain light-duty truck lines and

multipurpose passenger vehicle lines may now be determined to be likely

high theft vehicles, and thus, may be subject to the parts marking

requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. If the lines are

designated as high theft lines, manufacturers of certain light-duty

trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicle lines may, under the

procedures in part 543, petition for exemption of these lines from the

parts marking requirements.

The title VI amendment giving rise to this final rule restricts the

number of exemptions from parts marking that may be granted to any

manufacturer of high theft passenger motor vehicle lines. As a result

of the amendments to section 605(a)(2) of title VI, the agency may

continue to grant exemptions for two high theft lines per manufacturer

per year, from the present through MY 1996. However, for the next four

years, title VI states that:

For MY 1997 through MY 2000, (NHTSA) may grant such an exemption

for not more than 1 additional line of any manufacturer * * *

Amended title VI also states that, after MY 2000, the granting of

any further exemptions would be contingent on a determination by the

U.S. Attorney General on whether the antitheft devices are an effective

substitute for parts marking in substantially inhibiting vehicle theft.

The Attorney General's determination must be made by December 1999. See

section 602(f)(5) of title VI.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

On July 1, 1993, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (58 FR

35422) a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to make part 543

consistent with the new statutory restrictions on the number of

exemptions from the parts marking requirements of part 541. The agency

proposed to amend part 543 to state the number of vehicle lines for

which a manufacturer may petition for exemption for each model year

through MY 2000.

More specifically, NHTSA proposed that for each model year through

model year 1996, a manufacturer may petition for exemptions for up to

two additional lines of its passenger motor vehicles, and that for each

model year from model year 1997 through model year 2000, a manufacturer

may petition for exemptions for only one additional line of its

passenger motor vehicles. NHTSA noted that the statutory language is

more ambiguous about the number of exemptions that may be granted for

model years 1997 through 2000 than for the years preceding that period.

For guidance in resolving this ambiguity, the agency consulted the

legislative history of the ACTA. The agency viewed the legislative

history as ``strong evidence'' that Congress intended to permit each

manufacturer to petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for only one

additional line of its passenger motor vehicles from parts marking for

each of model years 1997 through 2000.

NHTSA did not propose to address exemptions for model years after

MY 2000, since any such exemptions are contingent upon the Attorney

General's determination to be made in 1999.

Finally, NHTSA proposed a minor amendment to reflect the fact that

petitions can be submitted under part 543 for light-duty trucks and

multipurpose passenger vehicles, as well as passenger cars.

Public Comments and Final Rule

In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received three comments. The

comments were submitted by the American Automobile Manufacturers

Association, (AAMA), the Ford Motor Company (Ford), and Chrysler

Corporation (Chrysler). AAMA and Ford each commented that they believe

the proposed changes to Part 543 conform to the Congressional intent of

the ACTA.

In its comment, Chrysler did not recommend any changes in the

proposed regulatory text, but made several observations. First, that

company noted that it offers antitheft devices as standard equipment on

two of its low theft lines and that, under the ACTA, those two lines

must have their low theft status reviewed by NHTSA. Chrysler stated

that if these lines were to be determined to be high theft, it could

lose a year's allocation of exemptions from the parts marking

requirements. The agency notes that Chrysler's understanding is

correct, and that the result is a logical consequence of the

combination of the statutory mandate to review the low theft status of

existing lines and the statutory limitation on the number of additional

exemptions.

Second, Chrysler stated that it agrees with NHTSA that since the

ACTA now includes within its scope certain multipurpose passenger

vehicles and light duty trucks, these vehicles should also be eligible

for exemption from parts marking.

Third, Chrysler stated that it questions the rationale for limiting

parts marking exemptions. That company noted that in order to be

exempted from parts marking, an antitheft device must be determined to

be at least as effective as parts marking in deterring auto theft.

Chrysler stated that it would seem that the ACTA should promote and

encourage the inclusion of anti-theft devices as standard equipment on

as many vehicle lines as possible in lieu of parts marking. That

company argued that the ACTA's exemption limitation may have the

practical and real effect of discouraging manufacturers from including

antitheft devices as standard equipment on a wider array of vehicle

lines. Chrysler stated that the ACTA should have increased the number

of annual exemptions allowed and thereby encourage a broader base of

vehicles equipped with effective antitheft devices offered as standard

equipment.

NHTSA notes that nothing in the ACTA prevents manufacturers from

including antitheft devices as standard equipment on all of their

vehicles. The statutory limitation on number of exemptions means only

that, in some cases, parts marking could be required even if a high-

theft line is equipped with an effective antitheft device. While NHTSA

understands that Chrysler disagrees with the ACTA's limitation on the

number of additional exemptions, the agency must follow the statute as

enacted by Congress.

Based on the information set forth above, and in light of the fact

that none of the public commenters recommended changes in the proposed

regulation, NHTSA is adopting as final the regulatory text proposed in

the NPRM.

Regulatory Impacts

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under

Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory

policies and procedures. This action has been determined not to be

``significant'' other either. This rule simply sets forth amendments

conforming part 543 to the amendments to title VI. The rule itself has

no impacts on the manufacturers of passenger motor vehicles. The agency

has also determined that the economic and other impacts of this rule

are so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The agency has also considered the effects of this rulemaking

action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final

rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. As already noted, this rule simply sets forth

amendments conforming part 543 to the amendments to title VI. The rule

itself will have no impacts on the manufacturers of passenger motor

vehicles or on small organizations or governmental units that purchase

passenger motor vehicles. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a

regulatory flexibility analysis.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,

the agency has considered the environmental impacts of this rule and

determined that it will not have a significant impact on the quality of

the human environment.

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

The procedures in this rule for manufacturers to submit petitions

for exemption from parts marking to NHTSA are considered to be

information collection requirements, as that term is defined by the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320. The

information collection requirements for part 543 have been submitted to

and approved by the OMB, pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This collection of information

has been assigned OMB Control No. 2127-0542 (``Petitions for exemption

from the vehicle theft prevention standard'') and has been approved for

use through July 31, 1995.

5. Federalism

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined

that the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

6. Civil Justice Reform

This final rule does not have any retroactive effect, and it does

not preempt any State law. Section 613 of the Motor Vehicle Information

and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2020), provides that judicial review of

this rule may be obtained pursuant to section 504 of the Cost Savings

Act, (15 U.S.C. 2004). The Cost Savings Act does not require submission

of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 543

Administrative practice and procedure, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, Reporting requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 543 is amended to

read as follows:

PART 543--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 543 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2025; delegation of authority at 49 CFR

1.50.

2. Section 543.5(a) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 543.5 Petition: General requirements.

(a) For each model year through model year 1996, a manufacturer may

petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for up to two additional lines of

its passenger motor vehicles from the requirements of part 541 of this

chapter. For each of model years 1997 through 2000, a manufacturer may

petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one additional line of its

passenger motor vehicles from the requirements of part 541 of this

chapter.

* * * * *

3. Section 543.6(a) introductory text is republished for the

convenience of the reader and paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 543.6 Petition: Specific content requirements.

(a) Each petition for exemption filed under this part must include:

(1) A statement that an antitheft device will be installed as

standard equipment on all vehicles in the line for which an exemption

is sought;

* * * * *

Issued on: March 2, 1994.

Christopher A. Hart,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-5188 Filed 3-7-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-M