[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 176 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48758-48760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24434]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Auto Theft and Recovery; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (``ACTA''), as amended, 
requires the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to expand 
the scope of its existing automobile parts marketing program to include 
certain unmarked passenger motor vehicles--unless the Attorney General 
finds that such a program would not substantially inhibit chop shop 
operations and motor vehicle thefts. In accordance with the requirement 
of section 306 of ACTA, the Attorney General is required to make this 
finding based, in part, on information developed after notice and an 
opportunity for a public hearing. Therefore, the United States 
Department of Justice is publishing this notice seeking public comment 
on the issue of whether or not parts marking substantially inhibits 
chop shop operations and motor vehicle thefts.

DATES: All comments must be received no later than November 10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be submitted to Thomas Eldridge, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Room 2213, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20530.


[[Page 48759]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Eldridge, U.S. Department of 
Justice, Room 2213, Washington D.C. 20530 (202) 307-3966.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act 
of 1984 (the ``1984 Act'') required the Secretary of the Department of 
Transportation (``DOT'') to issue a rule requiring the marking of 
certain major parts of high-theft passenger automobile lines. DOT 
implemented the 1984 Act by issuing the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard, as codified at 49 CFR Part 541.
    The purpose of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard 
was to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle theft by facilitating the 
tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard seeks 
to facilitate such tracing by requiring that vehicle identification 
numbers (``VINs''), VIN derivative numbers, or other symbols be placed 
on major motor vehicle parts. At this time, each vehicle in a high-
theft line must have its major parts and major replacement parts marked 
unless the line is exempted from parts marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 
543.
    The Anti Car theft Act of 1992 (``ACTA'') expanded the coverage of 
the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard to include high 
theft lines of multipurpose passenger vehicles or light duty trucks 
rated less than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. ACTA also required 
DOT to prescribe a vehicle theft standard to cover not more than 50 
percent of passenger motor vehicles (except light duty trucks) not 
designated as high theft lines. DOT was required to prescribe such 
conforming vehicle theft standards by October 25, 1994. In addition, 
ACTA required the Secretary of DOT to apply the Federal Motor Vehicle 
Theft Prevention Standard to all remaining lines of passenger motor 
vehicles (except light duty trucks) within three years after 
prescribing the vehicle theft standard--unless the Attorney General 
found that applying the standard would not substantially inhibit chop 
shop operations and motor vehicle thefts.
    The Attorney General is required to make this finding based, in 
part, on information developed after notice and an opportunity for a 
public hearing. Therefore, the Department of Justice now seeks public 
comment on whether or not applying the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard to the remaining lines of passenger motor vehicles 
(except light duty trucks) substantially inhibits chop shop operations 
and motor vehicle thefts.
    The Attorney General also is required to consider and include in a 
record submitted to the Secretary of DOT additional costs, 
effectiveness, competition, and available alternative factors 
concerning the expansion of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard. The Department of Justice will consider studies conducted by 
the Department and DOT, as well as any comments solicited by this 
notice, in reaching its finding. The Department of Justice also will 
consider comments previously submitted to DOT in response to a June 26, 
1997 Federal Register Notice (62 FR 34494) requesting comments on a DOT 
preliminary report entitled ``Auto Theft and Recovery; Preliminary 
Report on the Effects of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 and the Motor 
Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984.'' Parties who submitted 
comments to DOT in response to that request do not need to submit 
similar comments to the Department of Justice.
    In order to develop the required information for its finding, the 
Department of Justice awarded a grant, through a competitive process, 
to a contractor to evaluate the impact of the auto parts marking 
regulations on automobile thefts. As part of this grant, the contractor 
surveyed auto theft investigators from local and state law enforcement 
agencies. This survey, titled ``Opinions of 47 Auto Theft Investigators 
Regarding Automobile Component Parts Anti-Theft Labels,'' was prepared 
and submitted to the Department of Justice for consideration on 
December 30, 1996. The following outlines the findings contained in the 
survey:
    (1) The survey was administered by telephone to a sample of 
investigators from 47 jurisdictions, including 31 of the 32 largest 
cities in the country (plus Miami), six smaller jurisdictions, and nine 
state agencies.
    (2) Nearly three-quarters of the 40 big city and state auto theft 
investigators contacted reported that anti-theft labels are useful in 
helping to identify and arrest chop shop owners and individuals who 
steal or traffic in stolen vehicles and parts.
    (3) Nearly two-thirds of investigators reported that labels also 
aid in the successful prosecution of chop shop operators and other 
automobile and parts thieves.
    (4) Investigators reported that the most serious obstacle to making 
more effective use of the labels is that they are easily removed and, 
once removed, it is impossible to prove that the parts are stolen 
because the owner cannot be traced.
    (5) Investigators were about evenly divided regarding whether anti-
theft labels deter professionals or amateurs from stealing or stripping 
cars.
    (6) All but one investigator felt that parts marking legislation 
should be extended to all automobile lines and to all types of 
noncommercial vehicles, especially pickup trucks.
    (7) Investigators suggested that parts marking might be more 
effective if: (i) auto theft investigators and patrol officers were 
trained more systematically and frequently in how to investigate label 
removal and tampering; (ii) legislation in every state made tampering 
with or removing labels a felony; and (iii) manufacturers were required 
to stamp VINs on the component parts rather than using removable 
labels.
    (8) Respondents also recommended providing investigators access to 
ultraviolet lights with which to detect counterfeit labels or the 
``footprints'' that most anti-theft labels are designed to leave if 
removed.
    The Department of Justice plans to consider this survey prior to 
making and providing its required finding to DOT. Persons interested in 
obtaining a copy of the survey should call the National Criminal 
Justice Reference Service at 1-(800) 851-3420 and request Document No. 
NCJ 171693.
    Pursuant to the grant awarded by the Department of Justice, the 
contractor also is preparing a report based on a cross-sectional time 
series analysis of national auto theft data, including FBI reported 
automobile thefts, R.J. Polk, Inc.'s data on car registrations, 
supplemented by Census statistics, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, and the 
National Household Victimization Survey. This report currently is being 
revised to incorporate new information provided by DOT and should be 
completed no later than the end of 1998. The Department of Justice 
plans to consider this report prior to making and providing its 
required finding to DOT.
    In addition to the report being prepared on behalf of the 
Department of Justice, DOT also conducted studies addressing the 
effectiveness of parts marking which the Department of Justice will 
consider as part of the record for its findings. In 1991, the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration presented a report to Congress 
assessing the auto theft problem in the United States and evaluating 
parts marking. Although evidence of the effectiveness of parts marking 
could not be obtained through statistical analysis of theft and 
recovery rates at that time, DOT nevertheless found wide support in 
1991 for parts marking in the law enforcement community. Investigators 
believed that

[[Page 48760]]

parts marking provided them with a valuable tool for detecting, 
apprehending, and prosecuting thieves. After considering the analyses, 
surveys and public comments obtained during the preparation of the 1991 
report, DOT recommended that the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard be continued with minor changes.
    In addition, on June 26, 1997, DOT sought information concerning 
the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard in a Federal 
Register Notice (62 FR 34494) requesting comments on a DOT preliminary 
report entitled ``Auto Theft and Recovery; Preliminary Report on the 
Effects of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 and the Motor Vehicle Theft 
Law Enforcement Act of 1984.'' Persons interested in obtaining a copy 
of this report should contact the Docket Section, Room 5111, NASSIF 
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, and refer to 
Docket Number 97-042; Notice 1.
    According to DOT's June 26, 1997 notice, analyses of the 
effectiveness of parts marking in ``high theft'' passenger car lines 
suggested that parts marking has benefits in reducing theft rates, and 
at times in increasing recovery rates. DOT stated that these benefits 
seem to exceed the cost of parts marking. DOT also found that the 
greatest impact of parts marking appears to occur with chop shops and 
``professional'' auto thieves. While more vehicles stolen for export 
are being recovered according to DOT, the number recovered was too 
small to say that parts marking has helped reduce thefts for export or 
recovery of these vehicles. (62 FR 34496).
    Given that parts marking appears to be effective in currently 
marked passenger car lines, DOT believed that there was no reason to 
doubt that it also could have benefits for other passenger vehicles. 
DOT further stated that it appears that parts marking and other 
provisions of the 1984 Act and ACTA have given the law enforcement 
community tools they can use to deter thefts, trace stolen vehicles and 
parts, and apprehend and convict thieves. (62 FR 34496-97).
    The Department of Justice plans to utilize these reports and 
studies, as well as any comments solicited by this notice or the DOT 
notice, as the record for the finding it will make to the Secretary of 
DOT pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33103(c).

Comments Sought

    The Department of Justice seeks public comment on whether or not 
applying the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard to the 
remaining lines of passenger motor vehicles (except light duty trucks) 
substantially inhibits chop shop operations and motor vehicle thefts. 
In this regard, the Department of Justice also seeks comments 
concerning additional costs, effectiveness, competition, and available 
alternative factors associated with the expansion of the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard to the remaining lines of passenger 
motor vehicles (except light duty trucks).
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date will be considered. To the extent possible, comments filed 
after the closing date also will be considered.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33103.

    Dated: August 25, 1998.
James K. Robinson,
Assistant Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 98-24434 Filed 9-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-14-M