[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