[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47427-47429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-22594]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 93-50; Notice 4]


Denial of Petition for Reconsideration, Nassau Technologies; 
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Response of Petition for Reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition from Nassau Technologies, Inc., 
for reconsideration of NHTSA's decision not to include motor vehicle 
glazing as a major vehicle component, which would be subject to the 
parts-marking requirement of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle 
(Theft Prevention Standard). NHTSA is denying the petition because it 
believes that it needs cost and effectiveness information beyond that 
which it received in connection with this petition in order to make an 
informed decision about whether motor vehicle glazing should be added 
to the list of major components for which parts-marking is required by 
the theft prevention standard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara Gray, Office of Market 
Incentives, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 
Gray's telephone number is (202) 366-1740. Her fax number is (202) 493-
2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 7, 1993, NHTSA published in the Federal Register an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (58 FR 36376), seeking comments 
on possible definitions of multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPVs) and 
light-duty truck (LDTs) to be used in the Federal motor vehicle theft 
prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) when the agency amended it to add 
those vehicles categories pursuant to the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992, 
P.L. 102-519 (October 25, 1992). The ANPRM also sought comments on 
which MPV and LDT parts should be considered major 

[[Page 47428]]
component parts, and therefore, subject to the parts-marking 
requirements.
    Several commenters on the ANPRM, Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety (Advocates), Prospective Technologies (Prospective), and State 
Farm Mutual Insurance Company (State Farm), suggested that motor 
vehicle glazing be treated as major component parts for all high-theft 
vehicle lines. Prospective cited the relative ease with which glazing 
could be marked, the low cost of marking, and provided examples of 
lower-theft rates for some motor vehicles with glazing that had been 
voluntarily marked with the vehicle identification number.
    On July 8, 1994, the agency published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (59 FR 35082), which 
requested additional comments on proposed definitions of MPVs and LDTs 
and also solicited comments on the components of these vehicles that 
should be subject to parts marking. In the NPRM, the agency 
specifically requested additional information and comments on whether 
glazing should also be added to the passenger vehicle components 
subject to parts making, and proposed the following glazing components 
to be marked, if present on the vehicle: windshield, right/left front-
side window, right/left rear-side window, rear window, and right/left 
T-top inserts. In addition, the NPRM sought comments on the exclusion 
of particular glazing pieces, and whether glazing should be exempted 
from the requirements of 49 CFR Sec. 541.5(d)(1)(ii)(B) that the 
marking be placed on a portion of the part not likely to be damaged in 
a collision. Finally, the notice requested comments on how the target 
areas for glazing parts could be specified so that the markings 
required by the antitheft standard and the markings required by Federal 
motor vehicle safety standard 205, Glazing Materials, would not be 
placed in the same area.
    Five of the fifteen commenters, International Association of Auto 
Theft Investigators (IAATI), Advocates, State Farm, Prospective, and 
Automark Corporation supported a requirement for marking motor vehicle 
glazing. The remaining commenters--automobile manufacturers and their 
associations, and the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)--
disagreed with including glazing as a component to be subject to the 
parts-marking requirements. Among the reasons given for disagreement 
were excessive cost, the fact that none of the methods for marking 
glazing had been implemented on a manufacturer's assembly line, 
occupational and environmental hazards presented by some of the 
chemicals and other materials used in marking glass, the questionable 
effectiveness in deterring theft, and the absence of legal authority. 
Nassau did not comment on the NPRM, and no other commenter mentioned 
laser technology as means of marking glazing material.
    After considering all of the comments, NHTSA issued a final rule 
that does not include glazing as one of the major vehicle components 
subject to the parts-marking requirements of Part 541 (59 FR 64164 
(December 13, 1994)).
    On January 12, 1995, the agency received a petition for 
reconsideration of the final rule from Nassau Technologies, Inc., of 
Stafford, Texas (Nassau). A manufacturer of a patented laser etching 
system known as LaserGuard. Nassau stated that it had not commented on 
the ANPRM or NPRM on requiring glazing to be marked under the theft 
prevention standard because it had not been aware of the agency's 
publication of the notices until after the comment period had closed. 
Its basis for seeking reconsideration of the final rule was that if 
NHTSA and the vehicle manufacturers had information about Nassau's 
LaserGuard system before the final rule, the agency would have included 
glazing as a component subject to the parts-marking requirements of 
Part 541.
    Nassau specifically addressed four major issues raised by the 
commenters opposed to marking of vehicle glazing: cost, adverse 
environmental and occupational health impacts, effectiveness as a theft 
deterrent, and problems with etching replacement glazing.
    Nassau contends that the cost estimates provided to NHTSA by the 
commenters opposed to marking of glazing were based on antiquated and 
costly glass-etching technologies, i.e., sandblasting and chemical 
etching processes. Nassau agreed that these methods are cumbersome and 
labor intensive.
    However, it asserted that its LaserGuard etching process is less 
costly than these processes because its system is automated, requires 
no stencil production or no etching materials and can be adapted to 
robotics for assembly line use. Nassau believes that the per-vehicle 
cost to mark glass with the LaserGuard system would be far less than 
$5.00. The current per-vehicle cost using LaserGuard is $5. Nassau 
believes that the cost would be substantially reduced if the system 
were used on a large scale by the automobile manufacturers. According 
to Nassau, the low per-vehicle cost of LaserGuard would keep the total 
cost of marking all required components of a vehicle below the 
statutory cumulative limit of $20.86 (in 1993 dollars).
    Nassau asserted that the environmental and employee health concerns 
about chemical etching and sandblasting raised by several 
manufacturers, including proper ventilation, storage and disposal of 
hazardous or caustic agents, and the need for protective apparel, would 
all be eliminated if the LaserGuard system were used. It stated that 
the LaserGuard system operates a Co2 laser.
    Nassau asserted that in its experience, glass etching has been 
successful as a theft deterrent. Its parent company has provided a 
glass etching product with a consumer warranty to a large automobile 
distributor for 10 years. The warranty for this product states that if 
the consumer's vehicle is stolen and not recovered the company will pay 
the owner one thousand dollars. Nassau submitted an exhibit showing 
that over a two-year period, 238,363 vehicles had their glazing etched 
using the product, and only 129 warranty claims were processed.
    Nassau stated that insurance companies and lawmakers who recognize 
glass etching as a theft deterrent generally support the view that 
etching the glass protects the vehicle as a whole from theft. Nassau 
also asserted that because it is difficult for thieves to make a 
vehicle unidentifiable if two or more windows must be removed and 
replaced, some insurance companies give a discount on the premium for 
vehicles that have some but not all glazing etched. According to 
Nassau, this would ameliorate the problems concerning the etching of 
replacement glass that were raised by some commenters. (It cited as an 
example the Texas Insurance Automobile Rules and Rating Manual which 
defines a qualifying antitheft system as a ``system under which the 
motor vehicle identification number (VIN) is permanently marked on at 
least two windows of the motor vehicle other than the small vent 
windows.'') If having as few as two windows glazed is sufficient to 
deter theft of the vehicle, there would not be a frequent need to 
replace damaged glass with etched glass in order to gain the deterrent 
effect. Nassau added that for those consumers who wished to have 
replacement glass etched, manufacturers could provide a chemical 
etching kit directly to the consumer or to the body shop upon request 
by the vehicle owner. 

[[Page 47429]]

    In conclusion, Nassau stated that the LaserGuard system, engineered 
and developed in 1990, has been successfully tested and operated in 
high-volume environments in multiple locations. It believes that the 
agency's decision not to include glazing as a component subject to the 
parts-marking requirement was heavily influenced by the concerns 
expressed by the manufacturers, which were based on different etching 
technologies.

Discussion

    The agency's principal reason for deciding in the final rule not to 
adopt the proposal to include glazing as a major vehicle component 
subject to parts-marking was its belief that ``specifying glazing as 
major parts, may make the costs of parts marking for some manufacturers 
exceed the $20.86 [1993 dollars] limited specified in [49 U.S.C.] 
section 33105(a),'' combined with the assertions from commenters that 
windows are rarely stolen as replacement parts, and that there is no 
evidence that vehicles are stolen for their glazing materials. 59 FR 
64166 (December 13, 1994).
    Nassau asserted in its petition that the per-vehicle cost of glass 
etching using its LaserGuard system is currently about $5. It also 
stated its belief that the per-vehicle cost would be substantially 
lower if the system were to be implemented on the assembly lines of the 
major vehicle manufacturers. It does not state whether its estimated 
per-vehicle-cost for large-scale use of LaserGuard takes into account 
the capital investment that manufacturers would be required to make to 
tool their assembly lines to accommodate the LaserGuard technology. The 
agency notes that in its petition Nassau states that the system can be 
adapted to robotics for use on the assembly line. The extent of the 
adaptations that would be needed and their possible cost is not known.
    Even if the agency were to accept the assertion that the per-
vehicle cost of laser etching of vehicle glazing would be low enough to 
keep the per-vehicle cost of parts-marking below the statutory limit, 
it would be required to consider other factors in deciding whether to 
mandate etching of vehicle glass. Some commenters on the NPRM raised 
serious questions about whether etched glazing would be an effective 
deterrent to vehicle theft. Nassau has countered these assertions with 
one example of a situation in which a group of vehicles with marked 
glazing had a very low incidence of theft.
    The agency does not believe it has a basis for concluding that it 
can give any more weight to Nassau's example than to the NPRM comments 
to the contrary. While it is clear that the vehicles in Nassau's 
example experienced a low-theft rate, there is no information in 
Nassau's submission that would enable the agency to make a judgment 
about whether and to what extent the low-theft rate could be attributed 
to the fact that the glazing on the vehicles was marked. Further, the 
entire MY 1993 Nissan 300ZX line had all its windows etched and the 
theft rate for that line continued to increase from the previous model 
year.
    The agency heretofore has limited designation of parts required to 
be marked under Part 541 to those parts explicitly listed by Congress 
and parts that were clearly within the scope of the mandate of the Anti 
Car Theft Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-519) to add multipurpose passenger 
vehicles and light-duty trucks to the vehicle categories covered by 
Part 541. See 59 FR 64166 (December 13, 1994). Because the data on the 
effectiveness of parts marking in general and marking of glazing in 
particular is uncertain, and the addition of a requirement to mark 
glazing would result in additional costs to vehicle and replacement 
parts manufacturers, the agency has decided that the best course at 
this time is to limit the scope of the parts-marking requirement to the 
parts listed in the final rule published December 13, 1994. (59 FR 
64166)
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency is denying the petition for 
reconsideration filed by Nassau Technologies, Inc.

    Issued on: September 6, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-22594 Filed 9-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P