# Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention; Exemption From Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-5188 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Uncategorized Document - **Published:** March 8, 1994 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-5188. Public record. Not legal advice.