[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43075-43087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15903]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 541

[Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12231]
RIN 2127-AI46


Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 
1984, NHTSA issued the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard 
requiring specified parts of high-theft vehicles to be marked with an 
identifying number. The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 requires NHTSA to 
conduct a rulemaking to extend the parts marking requirements of that 
Standard to all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with 
a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less, regardless of 
theft rate, unless the Attorney General finds that such a requirement 
would not substantially inhibit chop shop operations and motor vehicle 
thefts. The Attorney General has examined the evidence and concluded 
that the standard should be extended. Therefore, NHTSA is required to 
issue this proposal to extend the parts marking requirements to all 
passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle 
weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less, and to light duty trucks with 
major parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered 
major parts of multipurpose passenger vehicles.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket Section, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590. Alternatively, you may submit your comments 
electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System (DMS) 
website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or 
``Help/Info'' to view instructions for filing your comments 
electronically. Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should 
mention the docket number of this document. You can find the docket 
number at the beginning of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy issues, you 
may call Deborah Mazyck, Office of Planning and Consumer Programs, 
(Telephone: 202-366-0846) (Fax: 202-493-2290).
    For legal issues, you may call Dion Casey, Office of Chief Counsel 
(Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820).
    You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590.
    You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the 
Docket from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    A copy of the draft justification statement for the proposed 
collection of information associated with this rulemaking may be 
obtained by contacting Walter Culbreath, NHTSA Information Collection 
Clearance Officer, Office of Administration (Telephone: 202-366-1566). 
Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to 
OMB Clearance No. 2127-0510. A copy of the draft justification 
statement will also be available in the docket. The docket number is in 
the heading of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984
    B. The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992
    C. The Attorney General's Initial Review and Findings
II. Problem Description
    A. Motor Vehicle Theft
    B. Costs of Motor Vehicle Theft
III. Effectiveness of Parts Marking
    A. Deterring Motor Vehicle Thefts

[[Page 43076]]

    B. Cost of Parts Marking
IV. Agency Proposal
    A. Expansion of the Parts Marking Requirements
    B. Permanence of Markings
    1. The 1984 Final Rule
    2. The 1986 Response to Petitions for Reconsideration
    3. The 1998 Report to Congress
    4. The 1999 Abt Associates Report to the Attorney General
    5. The 2000 Attorney General's Initial Review
    6. Questions on More Permanent Methods of Parts Marking
    C. Marking Air Bags and Window Glazing
    D. Exemptions
    E. Small Volume Manufacturers
V. Costs and Benefits
    A. Costs
    B. Benefits
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

A.The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984

    In 1984, Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement 
Act (the 1984 Theft Act) in response to escalating motor vehicle 
thefts.\1\ The 1984 Theft Act was designed to reduce the incidence of 
motor vehicle thefts and simplify the tracing and recovery of parts 
from stolen vehicles. The 1984 Theft Act directed NHTSA to issue a 
theft prevention standard requiring vehicle manufacturers to mark major 
parts of high-theft passenger car lines with identifying numbers or 
symbols.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pub. L. 98-547.
    \2\ The 1984 Theft Act is codified at 49 U.S.C. 33101, et seq. 
Section 33102(a)(1) reads: ``The standard shall apply to--(A) 
covered major parts that manufacturers install in passenger motor 
vehicles in lines designated under section 33104 of this title as 
high theft lines; and (B) major replacement parts for the major 
parts described in clause (A) of this paragraph.'' Section 33101(10) 
defines a ``passenger motor vehicle'' as including ``a multipurpose 
passenger vehicle or light duty truck when that vehicle or truck is 
rated at not more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, NHTSA issued the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). (50 FR 43166, October 24, 1985). 
The standard applies only to those motor vehicle lines that the agency 
has designated as high-theft.\3\ Manufacturers of these high-theft 
passenger motor vehicle lines must mark the following ``major parts'' 
in those lines with the vehicle identification number (VIN): Engine, 
transmission, hood, fenders, side and rear doors (including sliding and 
cargo doors and decklids, tailgates, or hatchbacks, whichever is 
present), bumpers, quarter panels, and pickup boxes and/or cargo 
boxes.\4\ (50 FR 43166, October 24, 1985). The standard also requires 
replacement parts for these parts to be marked with the manufacturer's 
registered trademark, or some other unique identifier, and the letter 
``R.'' \5\ The standard became effective beginning with the 1987 model 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Appendix C to part 541 specifies the criteria for selecting 
lines that are likely to have high theft rates, and thus are subject 
to the parts marking requirements. These criteria include: the 
retail price of the vehicle line; the vehicle image or marketing 
strategy; the vehicle lines with which the line is intended to 
compete, and the theft rates of those lines; the theft rate for the 
line; and the presence or absence of any theft prevention devices.
    \4\ The engine and transmission may be marked with either the 
17-digit VIN or an 8-digit VIN derivative.
    \5\ 49 CFR 541.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturers can meet the parts marking requirements with 
indelibly marked labels that cannot be removed without becoming torn or 
rendering the number on the label illegible. If removed, the labels 
must leave a residue on the part after being removed so that 
investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present. 
Alteration of the number on the label must leave traces of the original 
number or otherwise visibly alter the appearance of the label material. 
A replacement major part must be marked with the registered trademark 
of the manufacturer of the replacement part, or some other unique 
identifier, and the letter ``R''.
    The 1984 Theft Act allowed for an exemption from the parts marking 
requirements for certain vehicle lines in which antitheft devices were 
installed as standard equipment. The 1984 Theft Act limited each 
manufacturer to two new exemptions per model year.\6\ The manufacturer 
must petition NHTSA to obtain an exemption. The agency grants the 
exemption if it determines that the devices are likely to be as 
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance 
with the parts marking requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NHTSA's procedures for exempting vehicles from the theft 
prevention standard are contained in 49 CFR part 543. Manufacturers 
were allowed two exemptions per model year through the 1996 model 
year. Beginning with the 1997 model year, manufacturers were allowed 
one exemption per model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992

    In 1991, NHTSA submitted a report to Congress assessing the motor 
vehicle theft problem and evaluating the effectiveness of parts 
marking.\7\ At that time, however, only two years of theft and recovery 
data were available for vehicles with marked parts. As a result, the 
agency could not obtain evidence of the effectiveness of parts marking 
through statistical analysis of theft and recovery rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Auto Theft and Recovery: Effects of the Motor Vehicle Theft 
Law Enforcement Act of 1984, Report to Congress, March 1991. The 
1984 Theft Act required this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, the agency found wide support for parts marking in 
the law enforcement community. Investigators stated that parts marking 
provided them with a valuable tool for detecting, apprehending, and 
prosecuting vehicle thieves. After considering the evidence and public 
comments obtained during the preparation of the 1991 report, the agency 
recommended that the theft prevention standard be continued with minor 
changes.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The agency recommended the following changes: (1) That the 
agency be allowed to establish a median theft rate based on data 
from the most current model year; (2) that the agency be allowed to 
re-designate a car line from likely high theft to likely low theft 
if that line had proved to be below an established median theft rate 
for a specified number of years; and (3) that manufacturers be 
allowed an unlimited number of exemptions for vehicles with anti-
theft devices installed as standard equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the agency's recommendations and other information, 
Congress enacted the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (the 1992 Theft Act). 
The 1992 Theft Act extended the parts marking requirements to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) (i.e., passenger vans and sport-
utility vehicles) and light duty trucks (pickup trucks and cargo vans) 
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less that 
NHTSA designated as high-theft. The 1992 Theft Act also extended the 
parts marking requirements to selected motor vehicle lines that were 
below the 1990/1991 median theft rate.
    As in the 1984 Theft Act, the 1992 Theft Act required NHTSA to 
report to Congress on the effects of the Act on trends in motor vehicle 
thefts and recovery by 1997.\9\ The 1992 Theft Act also required the 
Attorney General to submit two reports, an initial review of the 
effectiveness of parts marking,\10\ and a long-range review of the 
effectiveness of parts marking \11\ to the Secretary of Transportation. 
The 1992 Theft Act requires the Attorney General to make a finding that 
the Secretary shall extend the standard unless the Attorney General 
finds instead that extending the standard would not substantially 
inhibit

[[Page 43077]]

chop shop operations and motor vehicle thefts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A copy of this report, Auto Theft and Recovery: Effects of 
the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 and the Motor Vehicle Theft Law 
Enforcement Act of 1984, Report to Congress, July 1998, has been 
placed in the docket. The agency published a preliminary version of 
this report in the Federal Register on June 26, 1997, and requested 
comments on it. (62 FR 34494).
    \10\ 49 U.S.C. 33103(c). The Act does not specify a due date for 
the initial review.
    \11\ 49 U.S.C. 33103(d). The Act mandates that the long-range 
review be completed by December 31, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the 1992 Theft Act, the Secretary of Transportation is 
required to apply the parts marking requirements to the remaining lines 
of passenger motor vehicles (except light duty trucks) if the Attorney 
General finds in the initial review that they should be so applied.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The ``remaining lines'' referred to are lines of passenger 
cars and MPVs that have not been designated as high-theft vehicle 
lines. The term does not refer to lines of light duty trucks, which 
would continue to be subject to the procedures for selecting vehicle 
lines subject to the parts marking requirements regardless of the 
Attorney General's findings. As in the past, lines of light duty 
trucks would be subject to the parts marking requirements only if 
NHTSA designated them as high-theft vehicle lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Attorney General's Initial Review and Findings

    On July 21, 2000, the Attorney General submitted the initial review 
to NHTSA. The Attorney General has not yet completed the long-range 
review.
    In the July 21, 2000 initial review, the Attorney General reported 
to the Secretary of Transportation on the effectiveness of the parts 
marking requirements.\13\ The Attorney General concluded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A copy of the initial review has been placed in the docket.

    After conducting an initial review of the effectiveness of the 
vehicle theft prevention standard as required by the Act, I have 
determined that the available evidence warrants application of the 
vehicle theft prevention standard to the remaining motor vehicle 
lines. That is, the evidence does not support a finding that 
requiring motor vehicle manufacturers to mark major parts in all 
motor vehicle lines will not substantially inhibit chop shop 
operations and motor vehicle thefts. Therefore, the parts marking 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
requirement should be expanded.

    The Attorney General based this conclusion on information from 
several sources, including data from the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI), which reported automobile thefts by model, model 
year, state, and registration year from 1981 through 1995, and R.J. 
Polk, Inc., which provided data on car registrations for that time 
period. The Department of Justice (DOJ) also contracted with Abt 
Associates to report on the effectiveness of automobile parts 
marking.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Abt Associates, ``An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of 
Automobile Parts Marking on Preventing Theft,'' July 1, 1999. A copy 
of this report has been placed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Problem Description

A. Motor Vehicle Theft

    Motor vehicle thefts occur for a variety of reasons that can 
generally be used to group thefts into two categories: professional and 
non-professional.\15\ Professionals steal vehicles primarily for three 
purposes: chop shop operations, theft and retag, and thefts for export.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This discussion is a summary of the 1998 report NHTSA 
submitted to Congress. A copy of this report has been placed in the 
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chop shop operations are businesses that acquire stolen vehicles or 
hire thieves to provide vehicles so that parts can be removed and sold 
for profit. These parts may eventually be bought by others to repair 
damaged vehicles since they sell for substantially less than original 
equipment parts.
    Theft and retag occurs when vehicles are stolen and sold for profit 
to be registered under another VIN. The new VIN and title are obtained 
by purchasing a junked vehicle of the same make and model. The VIN 
plate is transferred from the junked vehicle to the stolen vehicle, and 
the title is altered to match the stolen vehicle.
    Thefts for export occur when vehicles are stolen and illegally 
shipped out of the United States to be sold for profit.
    Non-professionals steal vehicles primarily for three purposes: 
insurance fraud, concealing one's identity while committing another 
crime, and joyriding or temporary transportation.
    An individual commits insurance fraud by ``stealing'' his or her 
own vehicle, or having somebody else ``steal'' and hide it, so he or 
she can collect its insured value. After the insurance company pays, 
the vehicle may be abandoned by the thieves, eventually recovered, and 
end up as the property of the insurance company. Insurance fraud 
usually occurs when the owner is in financial distress or the actual 
value of a vehicle is much lower than its insured value.
    Non-professional vehicle thieves also steal vehicles to conceal 
their identity while committing another crime, since the stolen vehicle 
cannot easily be traced to the criminal. These thieves usually use 
stolen vehicles for transportation to and from the scene of the crime. 
Such vehicles usually are abandoned soon afterward and eventually 
recovered.
    Finally, non-professionals steal vehicles for joyriding or 
temporary transportation. Such vehicles are usually abandoned and 
recovered after a matter of hours or days.
    According to data from the FBI's National Crime Information Center 
(NCIC), almost 1.2 million motor vehicles were stolen in 1995. 
Passenger cars accounted for 71 percent of all motor vehicle thefts in 
1995. Light duty trucks and MPVs accounted for 24 percent. The 
remaining five percent were thefts of motorcycles, buses, and heavy 
trucks.
    Of the more than 1 million vehicles stolen each year, approximately 
200,000 are never recovered. Chop shop operations, theft and retagging, 
thefts for export, and insurance fraud are believed to account for most 
of the unrecovered vehicles.

B. Costs of Motor Vehicle Theft

    The overall cost of motor vehicle thefts to the United States 
economy is difficult to estimate. Not all thefts are reported. The 
precise value of stolen and recovered vehicles may be unknown. 
Moreover, ancillary costs, such as insurance administration, police 
work, and the loss of victims' time (i.e., filling out reports, 
appearing in court, acquiring substitute transportation, etc.) are 
difficult to gauge.
    However, motor vehicle theft is the number one property crime in 
the United States. The FBI estimates that in calendar year 2000, there 
were 1,165,559 reported stolen vehicles with an average value of 
$6,682; thus, the total value of vehicles stolen was almost $7.8 
billion.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Federal Bureau of Investigation, ``Crime in the United 
States, 2000,'' pp. 53 and 286. This report can be found on the FBI 
website at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Effectiveness of Parts Marking

A. Deterring Motor Vehicle Thefts

    Parts marking deters motor vehicle theft and aids theft 
investigators in several ways. First, when a car is stolen, as long as 
the marking on at least one part remains intact, investigators can more 
easily trace the car to its owner, prove it was stolen, and make an 
arrest. Second, motor vehicle theft investigators in many jurisdictions 
have been given the authority to seize parts or vehicles when markings 
have been damaged or removed. Third, investigators in most 
jurisdictions treat the absence of intact markings as a ``red flag'' 
indicating a need for further investigation. Fourth, in those 
jurisdictions requiring inspections of restored cars before they can be 
re-titled, parts marking assists officers in identifying vehicles that 
have been reassembled using stolen parts.
    Parts marking also aids in prosecuting chop shop owners and dealers 
in stolen vehicles and parts. The ease with which thieves, operators of 
chop shops, and dealers in stolen parts can be prosecuted is a 
significant deterrent to motor vehicle theft and the operation of chop 
shops.

[[Page 43078]]

    NHTSA believes that parts marking deters professional rather than 
non-professional motor vehicle thieves. Parts marking allows law 
enforcement agencies to identify stolen vehicles or parts removed from 
stolen vehicles. This makes it more difficult for professional thieves 
to market stolen vehicles and parts, and aids officials in apprehending 
and prosecuting professional thieves.
    Parts marking probably does not deter non-professional thieves who 
steal motor vehicles to use for joyriding or temporary transportation 
since these thieves do not intend to re-sell the vehicles or their 
parts. Non-professional thieves probably are deterred more by anti-
theft devices (e.g., car alarms) that make vehicles more difficult to 
steal.
    Abt Associates conducted an analysis of auto theft data to 
determine the effectiveness of parts marking. NHTSA provided Abt 
Associates with theft and recovery data. NHTSA's data came from two 
principal sources: the FBI, which reported automobile thefts, and R.J. 
Polk, Inc., which provided data on car registrations. Both data sets 
were classified by model, model year, state, and registration year from 
1984 through 1995. Taken together, these two sets of data yielded 
estimates of the automobile theft rates for that time period.
    NHTSA also provided Abt Associates with information indicating 
which cars were subject to the parts marking requirements. Abt 
Associates augmented these data by adding information based on Census 
statistics and FBI Uniform Crime Reports, and analyzing data on 
automobile theft from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS.)
    Abt Associates' best estimate is that between 33 and 158 fewer cars 
are stolen by professional thieves per 100,000 cars that were marked 
between 1987 and 1995. Abt Associates stated that they were not 
confident that the statistical analysis accurately estimated the effect 
of parts marking for various reasons. Nevertheless, Abt Associates 
stated that the available evidence is consistent with the conclusion 
that parts marking does reduce automobile theft, even if the size of 
the effect is uncertain.
    This finding is consistent with the findings in NHTSA's 1998 Report 
to Congress. The agency was unable to generate reliable quantitative 
estimates of the effectiveness of parts marking. However, the agency's 
analysis found several indications that parts marking was having 
beneficial effects. For example, the agency noted that for model years 
1986 and 1987, when the parts marking requirements were introduced, 
cars with marked parts had lower theft rates than expected, while those 
with unmarked parts had higher rates than expected.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The agency noted that this effect weakened as the cars 
aged, probably because professional thieves learned how to 
obliterate the markings and found them less of a deterrent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Cost of Parts Marking

    The 1984 Theft Act limits the cost that may be imposed by the parts 
marking requirements to $15 per vehicle (in 1984 dollars).\18\ However, 
the Act permits the cost limit to be adjusted for inflation, based on 
the Consumer Price Index.\19\ The limit in 2000 dollars, which NHTSA is 
using for purposes of this proposed rule, is $24.86 per vehicle.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 49 U.S.C. 33105(a).
    \19\ 49 U.S.C. 33105(c).
    \20\ In setting this limit, Congress intended MPVs and light 
duty trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less to be included in 
the cost estimate for parts marking motor vehicles, event though 
these vehicles were excluded from the parts marking requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on a 1988 NHTSA study, the agency estimated that the average 
cost of parts marking was $4.14 per vehicle in 1988 dollars.\21\ This 
cost estimate took into account overhead costs and profit, but excluded 
the cost of marking engines and transmissions, which were marked prior 
to the 1984 Theft Act, and thus not included in the statutory limit. 
Based on the Consumer Price Index, the agency estimates that the cost 
of parts marking is $6.03 per vehicle, an amount well within the 
statutory limit of $24.86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ``Evaluation of Methods and Costs to Mark Vehicle Parts for 
Theft Prevention: Volume 1'' NHTSA, DOT HS 87, 616, September 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its 1998 Report to Congress, discussed in greater detail below, 
NHTSA estimated that in order to be cost effective, parts marking would 
have to reduce by two percent theft among vehicles that were up to 
three years old.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Abt Associates concluded that the parts marking 
requirements would be cost effective if they prevented from 8 to 19 
car thefts per 100,000 marked cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Agency Proposal

A. Expansion of the Parts Marking Requirements

    As noted above, the 1992 Theft Act requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to apply the parts marking requirements to the remaining 
lines of passenger motor vehicles (except light duty trucks) unless the 
Attorney General finds in the initial review that such a requirement 
would not substantially inhibit chop shop operations and motor vehicle 
thefts. As noted above, after studying the available evidence, the 
Attorney General concluded that the evidence does not support a finding 
that requiring motor vehicle manufacturers to mark major parts in all 
motor vehicle lines would not substantially inhibit chop shop 
operations and motor vehicle thefts and therefore found that the 
standard should be extended.
    Accordingly, the agency is proposing that the parts marking 
requirement be applied to all ``remaining lines,'' which includes 
passenger cars and MPVs, but not light duty trucks, with a GVWR of 
6,000 pounds or less. Light duty trucks, i.e., pickup trucks and cargo 
vans, would continue to be subject to the current procedures for 
selecting high-theft lines to be covered by the theft prevention 
standard.
    NHTSA notes that 49 CFR 542.2 provides procedures for selecting new 
low theft vehicle lines with major parts that are interchangeable with 
a majority of the major parts of a high theft vehicle line. These low 
theft vehicle lines with interchangeable parts are subject to the parts 
marking requirements.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ These vehicle lines are listed in Appendix B to Part 541--
Passenger Motor Vehicle Lines (Except Light Duty Trucks) With Theft 
Rates Below the 1990/91 Median Theft Rate, Subject to the 
Requirements of this Standard. Only four lines are listed in this 
table: Honda Civic, Ford Crown Victoria, Chevrolet Astro (MPV), and 
GMC Safari (MPV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency specified this requirement in a final rule mandated by 
the 1984 Theft Act, which provided:

    Lines whose theft rate is or is likely to be below the median 
theft rate, but whose major component parts are interchangeable with 
a majority of the major component parts of a line that is subject to 
the theft prevention standard * * *, are high theft lines * * * 
However, car lines whose theft rate is or is likely to be below the 
median theft rate will not be treated as high theft lines * * * if 
such low theft or likely low theft lines account for greater than 90 
percent of total production of all lines containing such 
interchangeable parts. (50 FR 34831, August 28, 1985).

    In explaining the purpose of this requirement, NHTSA stated:

    Congress determined that, although certain vehicles are not 
themselves from a high theft line, the high degree of 
interchangeability of their parts with those of a high theft line 
would make these otherwise low theft vehicles likely targets for car 
thieves. As likely targets for car thieves, Congress determined that 
all covered major parts on these vehicles should be marked, not just 
those that were interchangeable with the covered major parts of the 
high theft line. This will serve as an additional deterrent to the 
theft of these vehicles. (50 FR 34835, August 28, 1985).

    NHTSA believes that under the changes proposed in this document, a 
similar situation could arise with MPV

[[Page 43079]]

lines that have major parts interchangeable with light duty truck 
lines. The agency notes that passenger vans and sports utility vehicles 
are classified as MPVs while cargo vans and pickup trucks are 
classified as light duty trucks. The agency's proposal would expand the 
parts marking requirements to all MPVs, but maintain the requirement 
that only light duty trucks that have been designated as high theft 
lines be marked. Therefore, a passenger van or sports utility vehicle 
line, which is classified as an MPV, and thus would have to be marked, 
could have major parts interchangeable with a cargo van or pickup truck 
line, which is classified as a light duty truck, and thus would not 
have to be marked if it were not designated as a high theft line.
    An example of this is the General Motors Savana Van. There are two 
classes of the Savana Van, a passenger van version, which is classified 
as an MPV, and a cargo van version, which is classified as a light duty 
truck. Under the agency's proposal, the passenger van version would 
have to be marked because it is an MPV, while the cargo van version 
would not have to be marked, unless General Motors or NHTSA designated 
it as a high theft line.
    Many of the major parts of these two vans are identical. If the 
agency does not require both versions to be marked, law enforcement 
could be compromised. For example, if police officers found a fender 
from a Savana Van at a chop shop, they would not be able to determine 
whether it should have been marked.
    To address this problem, NHTSA is proposing to add a new 
Sec. 542.3, modeled on Sec. 542.2.
    The agency is proposing to exclude low theft light duty truck lines 
that have major parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the 
covered major parts of multipurpose passenger vehicles if those light 
duty trucks account for more than 90 percent of the total production of 
all lines containing those interchangeable parts. As noted above, in 
the 1984 Theft Act Congress specifically excluded vehicle lines that 
are low theft but have major parts that are interchangeable with a 
majority of the covered parts of a high theft vehicle line if the low 
theft line accounted for more than 90 percent of the total production 
of all lines containing those interchangeable parts, and NHTSA 
specifically excluded such vehicle lines in the 1985 final rule 
establishing 49 CFR part 542.
    NHTSA requests comment on the number of light duty truck lines that 
would have to be marked under this proposal because they have major 
parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered parts of 
a MPV. The agency also requests comment on the cost of extending the 
parts marking requirements to all the vehicle lines discussed above, 
and on the potential effectiveness of parts marking in deterring thefts 
of these vehicles.
    NHTSA is proposing September 1, 2005 as the effective date for the 
new rule. The agency believes that this would provide enough lead-time 
to allow manufacturers to mark new vehicle lines and those vehicle 
lines previously determined to be low-theft, and thus not subject to 
the parts marking requirements. Although NHTSA believes that marking 
parts on additional vehicle lines would not be difficult, the agency 
believes that manufacturers may need this lead-time to buy additional 
parts-marking equipment, determine vehicles' target areas for parts 
marking, and decide whether to submit a petition for exemption from the 
parts marking requirements. The agency requests comment on whether this 
is sufficient lead-time for manufacturers.

B. Permanence of Markings

1. The 1984 Final Rule
    When labels are used to comply with the parts marking requirements, 
49 CFR Part 541 requires that the VIN or VIN derivative be printed 
indelibly on the label, and that the label be permanently affixed to 
the part. If the label is removed, it must self-destruct by tearing or 
making the VIN illegible. Removing the label also must alter the 
appearance of the area where the label was affixed so that evidence 
remains that a label was originally there. Any attempts to alter the 
number on a label must leave traces of the original number.
    NHTSA adopted these performance requirements in the final rule 
establishing the theft prevention standard. (50 FR 43166, October 24, 
1984). In the final rule, NHTSA noted that several commenters, 
including law enforcement agencies, suggested that the agency mandate 
the use of a particular marking system, such as stamping or glass 
etching. The commenters asserted that the use of a particular marking 
system would ensure the greatest effectiveness for the theft prevention 
standard.
    In response, the agency noted that it did not have the authority to 
mandate the use of any particular marking system. Under the 1984 Theft 
Act, the agency had authority only to establish performance criteria 
that would accomplish the purposes of the 1984 Theft Act. This 
conclusion was based on the legislative history of the 1984 Theft Act. 
The agency quoted from page 10 of the House Committee Report 
accompanying the 1984 Theft Act:

    The DOT will establish the tests or general criteria which the 
identification must meet, but not how it is to be inscribed or 
affixed. That is the choice of each manufacturer. For example, we 
understand that a tamper-resistant label exists. If it can meet the 
performance tests or general criteria prescribed by the standard, 
the manufacturer may choose to use it to comply with the standard. 
(H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., at 10 (1984), hereinafter 
cited as H. Rept.). (50 FR 43166).

    The House Committee Report identified the following three essential 
purposes for the 1984 Theft Act:

    (1) To prevent thefts and reduce the ease with which certain 
stolen vehicles and their major parts can be fenced;
    (2) To try to minimize regulation of the domestic and foreign 
motor vehicle manufacturing industry; and
    (3) To give law enforcement officers at all levels of government 
the much-needed prosecutory tools to crack criminal theft rings and 
related racketeering activities. H. Rept. at 2.

    The agency believed that the requirements of the theft prevention 
standard, as written in the final rule, would serve all of these 
purposes. The standard required any markings affixed to a part to be 
permanent, and removal of the markings to discernibly alter the 
appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed. In 
addition, the agency noted that the 1984 Theft Act made it a crime to 
possess a part from which the identification number had been 
removed,\24\ and the part was subject to seizure and forfeiture.\25\ 
The agency believed that those requirements would help to deter thefts 
and reduce the ease with which stolen vehicles and their parts could be 
fenced. Further, by allowing manufacturers to choose how they would 
meet the performance requirements, the agency believed that the 
standard minimized regulation of the motor vehicle manufacturing 
industry. Finally, NHTSA believed that the evidence left by the removal 
of affixed markings gave law enforcement officials prosecutorial tools 
to crack theft rings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 18 U.S.C. 2320.
    \25\ 18 U.S.C. 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The 1986 Response to Petitions for Reconsideration
    The agency also addressed this issue in its response to petitions 
for reconsideration of the final rule. In their petitions, three law 
enforcement groups objected to the absence of a requirement

[[Page 43080]]

that some of the required markings be stamped into a part. The Federal 
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) requested the agency to amend the final 
rule to require the full VIN, or a derivative thereof, to be stamped 
into a permanent metal part of each vehicle. The International 
Association of Auto Theft Investigators (IAATI) and the Criminal 
Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) asked that the agency 
modify the final rule to require that the markings be stamped into the 
frame, engine, and transmission.
    The agency responded:

    With respect to the request that the markings be required to be 
stamped into some covered major parts, NHTSA again concludes that 
the clearly-expressed Congressional intent would not allow the 
agency to require explicitly that markings be stamped into the 
parts. However, NHTSA acknowledges that it could indirectly require 
markings to be inscribed into some parts by setting higher 
performance standards for those parts. For instance, NHTSA could add 
a performance standard for some parts that the marking must be 
capable of being restored to its original form by chemical means, if 
the marking is altered or obliterated. Such a requirement would 
force manufacturers to inscribe the markings into those parts, by 
etching, sandblasting, stamping, and the like. However, NHTSA has 
concluded that it would be premature to impose such a requirement. 
(51 FR 8831, March 14, 1986).

    The agency concluded that it would be premature to impose such a 
requirement because there was not any empirical evidence that affixed 
markings complying with the performance requirements in the final rule 
would not adequately serve the needs of law enforcement. However, the 
agency stated, ``If it becomes clear that affixed markings are, in 
fact, not serving the legitimate needs of law enforcement, NHTSA will 
consider amending the performance requirements of this theft prevention 
standard.'' (51 FR 8831, March 14, 1986).
3. The 1998 Report to Congress
    On June 26, 1997, NHTSA published a preliminary version of its 1998 
Report to Congress on the effectiveness of the parts marking 
requirements in the Federal Register and requested comments. (62 FR 
34494, Docket No. 97-042, RIN 2127-AF55). Several commenters, primarily 
law enforcement agencies, recommended that the agency require the 
markings to be more permanent. The Iowa State Patrol recommended that 
the agency require all major parts to be stamped with the VIN or a VIN 
derivative. The Metropolitan Dade County (Florida) Police Department 
and the Florida Auto Theft Intelligence Unit suggested a label that, 
when removed, leaves a footprint with the full VIN.
    Vehicle manufacturers opposed more permanent methods of parts 
marking. The American Automobile Manufacturer's Association (AAMA), 
whose members were Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and 
General Motors Corporation, claimed that requiring the stamping or 
inscribing of the VIN into major vehicle parts would result in a 
``substantial increase in costs.'' However, AAMA stated that it had not 
had time to develop cost estimates.
4. The 1999 Abt Associates' Report to the Attorney General
    As part of its 1999 report to the Attorney General, Abt Associates 
conducted a survey of auto theft investigators from 47 jurisdictions, 
including 31 of the 32 largest cities in the U.S. (plus Miami), six 
smaller municipalities, and nine State agencies. These jurisdictions 
include the majority of jurisdictions with the highest auto theft rates 
in the U.S. The investigators reported that the most serious obstacle 
to making more effective use of the parts marking labels is that they 
are easy to remove and, once removed, it is impossible to prove that 
the parts are stolen because the owner cannot be traced.
5. The 2000 Attorney General's Initial Review
    The DOJ published the Abt Associates' report in the Federal 
Register and requested comments on whether expanding the parts marking 
requirements would be an effective deterrent to motor vehicle thefts, 
additional costs, and available alternative factors.\26\ In the July 
21, 2000 initial review, the Attorney General noted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 63 FR 48758, September 11, 1998.

    The investigators surveyed overwhelmingly supported more 
permanent markings, as did those who commented in response to the 
DOJ Notice * * * In fact, investigators identified the lack of 
permanence as the most significant obstacle to increasing the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
effective use of markings.

    Based on the Abt Associates survey and these comments, the Attorney 
General stated in the July 21, 2000 initial review, ``I have concluded 
that permanence is at the heart of any effective marking system, and 
therefore I urge DOT to require permanent, non-removable markings.'' 
However, the Attorney General did not suggest any specific requirements 
or methods for more permanent markings.
6. Questions on More Permanent Methods of Parts Marking
    Based on the comments of law enforcement agencies to both NHTSA's 
preliminary version of its 1998 Report to Congress,\27\ the Abt 
Associates report to the Attorney General,\28\ and the Attorney 
General's initial review, it appears that the current parts marking 
requirements are not meeting the legitimate needs of law enforcement. 
Accordingly, NHTSA is considering proposing to adopt performance 
requirements that would necessitate the use of more permanent methods 
of parts marking. NHTSA is not including any such proposals in this 
document because the agency needs more information to aid it in 
formulating specific proposals. To obtain that information, the agency 
has set out a series of questions below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 62 FR 34493, June 26, 1997.
    \28\ 63 FR 48785, September 11, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first several questions are similar to questions that the 
agency asked when it published the preliminary version of its 1998 
Report to Congress.\29\ The agency received little specific information 
on more permanent parts marking methods and their costs. The agency 
believes that ample time has passed since then for law enforcement 
agencies, vehicle and label manufacturers, and other organizations to 
provide more specific answers to these questions. NHTSA also believes 
that answers to these questions will aid the agency in determining what 
additional performance requirements and test procedures would be 
effective and appropriate. Thus, the agency is asking these questions 
again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 62 FR 34493, June 26, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Are there more permanent methods of parts marking that can be 
accomplished within the Congressionally mandated cost limit of $24.86 
(in 2000 dollars) per vehicle?
    2. Please include documentation on the markings method, how 
permanent the markings are (how difficult it is to remove the markings 
and what evidence is likely to remain after removal that there were 
markings), and cost estimates, including the cost of any materials, 
equipment, tooling, and labor. If the application of performance 
requirements necessitating the use of more permanent methods were 
limited so that they applied to only some of the parts required to be 
marked, which parts should be marked by those methods and how much cost 
could be saved.
    3. Please identify the economic year for the cost estimates.
    4. Please describe how the markings are applied using the more 
permanent

[[Page 43081]]

methods, including the time needed to mark all the major vehicle parts.
    In addition, the agency requests answers to the following new 
questions:
    5. Are more permanent methods of parts marking necessary?\30\ 
Please provide empirical evidence, i.e., evidence that labels have been 
removed from stolen vehicles and parts, and that enforcement efforts 
have been compromised as a result. How common a problem is this? Please 
document your answer to the extent possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ NHTSA considers the comments of a law enforcement agencies 
discussed above to be sufficient evidence for the agency to consider 
requiring more permanent methods of parts marking. However, before 
issuing a proposed rule specifying additional performance 
reqirements, the agency would like empirical evidence that current 
methods of parts marking are insufficient to meet the needs of law 
enforcement agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. As discussed above, NHTSA does not have the authority to adopt a 
requirement that expressly identifies a specific method of parts 
marking, such as stamping or etching, and mandate it. However, it can 
adopt performance requirements that have the effect of requiring a 
particular method or methods. With that in mind, what objective 
performance requirements and test procedures would be effective and 
appropriate for requiring more permanent methods of parts marking?
    7. How would these performance requirements and test procedures 
ensure that insufficiently permanent parts marking methods would be 
disallowed?
    NHTSA will use the answers to these questions in deciding whether 
to issue a separate proposal for new performance requirements and test 
procedures.

C. Marking Air Bags and Window Glazing

    Currently, air bags and window glazing are not classified as major 
parts subject to the parts marking requirements.
    The agency's latest data show that 65.5 million passenger cars are 
equipped with frontal air bags (51.6 million with dual air bags, and 
13.9 million with only a driver-side air bag); 40.3 million light 
trucks and MPVs are equipped with frontal air bags (28.7 million with 
dual air bags, and 11.6 million with only a driver-side air bag); 3.2 
million passenger cars are equipped with side air bags; and 1.3 million 
light trucks and MPVs are equipped with side air bags.
    The National Insurance Crime Bureau reports that approximately 
50,000 air bags are stolen each year, resulting in an annual loss of 
more than $50 million to vehicle owners and their insurers. The cost to 
replace air bag modules ranges from $500 to $1,500. The agency is 
particularly concerned by thefts of air bags because they are an 
important piece of safety equipment. The agency believes that marking 
air bags could aid in parts recovery and for use as evidence of vehicle 
theft.
    The agency does not believe that window glazing theft is a 
widespread problem. Window glazing markings are not for the purpose of 
preventing glazing from being stolen, but for the purpose of deterring 
vehicle theft, especially theft and retag operations. The agency 
believes that marking glazing could provide additional identification 
of motor vehicles and their replacement parts, as well as providing an 
additional deterrent to theft of the entire vehicle.
    Both the 1998 NHTSA Report to Congress and the 1999 Abt Associates 
report addressed the issue of expanding the parts marking requirements 
to cover additional parts. Results of Abt's survey of auto theft 
investigators indicate that almost all investigators would like the 
parts marking requirements expanded to cover additional parts. Several 
commenters on NHTSA's preliminary version of its 1998 Report to 
Congress supported extending parts marking to air bags and window 
glazing. Law enforcement agencies and consumer organizations favored 
subjecting air bags and window glazing to the parts marking 
requirements. The Florida Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Authority 
stated:

    Theft of air bags is a significant problem, and there are few 
tools that exist to assist the auto theft investigator in 
identifying stolen air bags, and more importantly, in being able to 
prosecute individuals for the purchase and sale of stolen air bags.

    The Metropolitan Dade County (Florida) Police Department asserted:

    Window etching is another visible marking that needs to be 
placed on all vehicles at the factory. Window etching acts as a 
deterrent and an investigative tool. Chop shop operations have had 
to replace all of the glass on stolen vehicles. Many times this 
changing of glass is readily identifiable to auto theft 
investigators. Numerous times, thieves have left windows with the 
original VIN etched on while altering the rest of the vehicle.

    Vehicle manufacturers opposed subjecting air bags and window 
glazing to the parts marking requirements. Toyota claimed that 
requiring window glazing to be marked would result in ``additional and 
unreasonable labor costs to coordinate the marking numbers of the 
glazing materials with their respective vehicles, all without any 
demonstrable benefit.'' The AAMA stated that there are serious problems 
with marking air bag modules for the following reasons:

    reasons:Modules are not designated for a specific vehicle prior 
to installation in the vehicle. Stamping of the air bag housing as a 
separate part prior to assembly of the air bag is not practicable. 
In addition, stamping the air bag module at the vehicle assembly 
plant is also not practicable due to the inherent risk of damage to 
the module, plus the risk of accidental deployment.

    Based on the effectiveness of parts marking in reducing thefts of 
vehicles and major parts, NHTSA believes that classifying air bags and 
glazing as major parts subject to the parts marking requirements could 
deter air bag and vehicle thefts and aid law enforcement agencies in 
apprehending and prosecuting the thieves. However, the agency currently 
does not have the statutory authority to subject air bags and window 
glazing to the parts marking requirements.\31\ Nevertheless, the agency 
is requesting comments on the potential costs and benefits of marking 
air bags and window glazing and whether the agency should pursue the 
statutory authority. The agency requests comment on the following 
questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 49 U.S.C. 33101(6) defines major parts as the engine, 
transmission, doors, hood, grille, bumpers, front fender, deck lid, 
tailgate, hatchback, rear quarter panels, truck floor pan, frame, 
and any other part of a vehicle that NHTSA specifies as comparable 
in design or function to any of the specified parts. The agency 
believes that neither air bags nor window glazing are comparable in 
design or function to any of the specified parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. What information exists regarding the frequency with which the 
absence of marking requirements for air bags and glazing compromises 
law enforcement?
    9. Assuming that the agency had the necessary authority, would it 
be sufficient if the agency required the marking of only specified 
glazing, e.g., the front and rear windshield glazing, instead of all 
glazing in a vehicle? If so, which glazing should be specified?
    10. How would such a limitation affect the costs of glazing 
marking?
    11. Would marking air bags with the VIN of a specific vehicle be 
practicable given that they are not designated for a specific vehicle 
prior to installation?
    12. Assuming that the agency had the necessary authority, should 
the agency require the marking of only frontal air bags, or all air 
bags, i.e., frontal, side, and side head air bags?
    Please provide a rationale with evidence to support any 
recommendations.

D. Exemptions

    The agency notes that this proposed rule would have no effect on 
exemptions from the parts marking

[[Page 43082]]

requirements. Currently, 49 U.S.C. 33104(d) provides that once a line 
has been designated as likely high-theft, it remains subject to the 
parts marking requirements unless it is exempted under section 
33106.\32\ Under Sec. 33106, vehicle manufacturers may petition the 
agency to have a high-theft line exempted from the parts marking 
requirements, if the line is equipped with an anti-theft device as 
standard equipment. The exemption is granted if NHTSA determines that 
the anti-theft device is likely to be as effective as compliance with 
the parts marking requirements in reducing and deterring motor vehicle 
thefts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ NHTSA's regulations implementing the statute are located at 
49 CFR Part 543, Exemptions from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 33106(2), manufacturers were permitted up to two new 
exemptions per model year for the model years 1988-1996. For the model 
years 1997-2000, manufacturers were permitted only one new exemption 
per model year. After the model year 2000, the number of new exemptions 
is contingent on findings by the Attorney General.
    As discussed earlier in this document, the statute requires the 
Attorney General to submit two reports, an initial review of the 
effectiveness of parts marking,\33\ and a long-range review of the 
effectiveness of parts marking.\34\ As part of the long-range review, 
the Attorney General must determine whether the anti-theft devices for 
which NHTSA grants exemptions ``are an effective substitute for parts 
marking in substantially inhibiting motor vehicle theft.''\35\ Thus, 
the Attorney General must decide whether NHTSA should continue granting 
exemptions, and, if so, the number of exemptions the agency may grant 
per model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 49 U.S.C. 33103(c).
    \34\ 49 U.S.C. 33103(d).
    \35\ 49 U.S.C. 33103(d)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To date, the Attorney General has submitted only the initial 
review, not the long-range review.\36\ Therefore, the Attorney General 
has not yet decided whether the exemptions should continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ As noted above, the initial review was submitted to NHTSA 
on July 21, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the absence of this review, NHTSA faced the question of whether 
Congress intended to terminate the exemption authority after model year 
2000, or whether it intended the exemptions to be continued pending the 
Attorney General's decision. After consulting with the Department of 
Justice, the agency determined that the appropriate reading of the 
statute is that NHTSA may continue to grant one new exemption per model 
year as specified by the statute for model years 1997-2000, pending the 
Attorney General's decision. Thus, the agency has continued to such 
exemptions.
    This proposed rule would not affect these exemptions. Manufacturers 
would still be allowed to petition the agency to exempt one new line 
each model year, if the line is equipped with an anti-theft device as 
standard equipment. NHTSA will revisit this issue when the Attorney 
General submits the long-range review to the agency.

E. Small Volume Manufacturers

    Currently, there are approximately 4 vehicle manufacturers that 
qualify as small businesses under the Small Business Administration's 
regulations. Because of their small sales volumes, these manufacturers' 
vehicles have not been subject to the theft prevention standard. 
Extending the theft prevention standard to all passenger cars and MPVs 
will require these manufacturers to comply with the standard for the 
first time.
    There are fixed costs associated with parts marking. With large 
vehicle manufacturers, these fixed costs are spread out over such large 
numbers of vehicles as to be insignificant. However, with small vehicle 
manufacturers, these fixed costs would be spread out over a much 
smaller number of vehicles.
    The agency estimates that the total costs for any vehicle 
manufacturer that makes fewer than 373 vehicles for sale in the U.S. 
per year would exceed the statutory limit of $24.86 per vehicle. Thus, 
the agency is proposing to exclude small volume manufacturers, i.e., 
those who make fewer than 500 vehicles for sale in the U.S. each year, 
from the expansion of the theft prevention standard proposed in this 
document.
    The agency requests comment on this issue.

V. Costs and Benefits

    Following is a summary of the estimated costs and benefits 
associated with this proposed rule. For a more detailed analysis, see 
the agency's Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation (PRE). A copy of the PRE 
has been placed in the docket.

A. Costs

    NHTSA estimates that the cost of parts marking in 2000 dollars is 
$6.03 per vehicle. The agency estimates that the proposed rule would 
subject an additional 3.25 million vehicles per year \37\ to the parts 
marking requirements. Thus, the total annual cost would be $19.6 
million (3.25 million vehicles x $6.03 per vehicle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ This includes the agency's estimate of the light duty truck 
lines that would have to be marked because they have major parts 
that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts 
of a MPV line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the agency notes that each replacement part for a part 
required to be marked must be marked with the manufacturer's registered 
trademark, or some other unique identifier, and the letter ``R.'' Under 
this proposal, the parts of 3.25 million additional vehicles would have 
to be marked. NHTSA does not know the number of replacement parts sold 
each year for 3.25 million vehicles. However, the agency estimates the 
cost of marking a replacement part to be $0.50 per part.

B. Benefits

    In calendar year 2000, there were 1,165,559 reported stolen 
vehicles with an average value of $6,682; thus, the total value of 
vehicles stolen was almost $7.8 billion.\38\ The value of unrecovered 
passenger cars and light duty trucks subject to the parts marking 
requirements was $2.756 billion. NHTSA estimates that 22 percent of 
vehicle thefts are of vehicles that are not being marked currently but 
would be required to be marked under this proposed rule. The agency 
estimates that the proposed rule would result in a 6.4 percent 
reduction in the economic loss for unrecovered thefts. Thus, the agency 
estimates that the value of thefts that could be reduced by this 
proposal is $38.8 million ($2.756 billion x 22 percent x 6.4 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Federal Bureau of Investigation, ``Crime in the United 
States, 2000,'' pp. 53 and 286. This report can be found on the FBI 
website at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;

[[Page 43083]]

    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 
12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT's Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures. However, the agency has prepared a Preliminary 
Regulatory Evaluation (PRE) for this proposed rule. A copy of the PRE 
has been placed in the docket.
    This mandated regulatory action would extend the parts marking 
requirements to all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
(but not light duty trucks) with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. The 
agency estimates that this regulatory action would extend the parts 
marking requirements to approximately 3.25 million vehicles each year, 
and the replacement parts for those vehicles. The agency estimates that 
the cost of parts marking is $6.03 per vehicle (in 2000 dollars). Thus, 
the annual cost would be $19.6 million.
    The agency also estimates that the cost of marking replacement 
parts is $0.50 per part. The agency does not know how many replacement 
parts are sold each year for 3.25 million vehicles. However, since the 
cost of marking replacement parts is only $0.50, the agency does not 
believe that the total cost of marking replacement parts would be 
substantial. Thus, the agency tentatively concludes that this 
regulatory action would have less than a $100 million annual effect on 
the economy.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
The Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR part 
121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which 
operates primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effect of this proposed rule under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. As noted above, this proposed rule would 
extend the parts marking requirements to approximately 3.25 million 
additional vehicles per year, and to the replacement parts for those 
vehicles. This proposed requirement would affect manufacturers of 
vehicles and replacement parts.
    As noted above, the agency is proposing to exclude manufacturers 
that make fewer than 500 vehicles for sale in the U.S. each year from 
the theft prevention standard.
    The agency has no information on the number of small manufacturers 
of replacement parts. However, since NHTSA estimates that the cost of 
marking replacement parts is only $0.50 per part, the agency believes 
that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on these 
manufacturers.
    Based on this analysis, I certify that this proposed rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that 
implementation of this proposed rule would not have any significant 
impact on the quality of the human environment.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local 
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a 
regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency 
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. NHTSA also may not issue a regulation with 
Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    The agency has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and has 
determined that it would not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposal would not have 
any substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federal-State 
relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.

E. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed amendment would not have any retroactive effect. 
Under 49 U.S.C. 33118, whenever a Federal motor vehicle theft 
prevention standard is in effect, a State or political subdivision of a 
State may not adopt or maintain a different theft prevention standard 
for a motor vehicle or replacement part. 49 U.S.C. 32909 sets forth a 
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending, or 
revoking Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standards. That section 
does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other 
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency 
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The current 
parts marking requirements in 49 CFR part 541 are considered a 
``collection of information,'' as that term is defined by OMB in 5 CFR 
part 1320. The OMB control number for those information collection 
requirements is 2127-0510. If adopted, this proposed rule would expand 
the parts marking requirements in 49 CFR part 541 to all passenger cars 
and multipurpose passenger vehicle lines with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or

[[Page 43084]]

less, and low theft light duty truck lines with major parts that are 
interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of 
multipurpose passenger vehicle lines.
    NHTSA has determined that, if made final, this proposed rule would 
impose new collection of information burdens within the meaning of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Under the PRA, before an agency 
submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it 
must publish a document in the Federal Register providing a 60-day 
comment period and otherwise consult with members of the public and 
affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information. 
The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in 
such a document. Under OMB=s regulations, (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an 
agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on 
the collection of information proposed in this notice of proposed 
rulemaking. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the draft 
justification statement by contacting Walter Culbreath, NHTSA 
Information Collection Clearance Officer at (202) 366-1566. A copy of 
the draft justification statement will also be available at the docket 
number cited in the heading of this notice. Comments must be received 
on or before August 26, 2002.

Consolidated Labeling Requirements for 49 CFR parts 565, 541, and 567

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved clearance.
    OMB Clearance Number: 2127-0510.
    Form Number: This proposed collection of information would not use 
any standard forms.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the date of 
approval of the collection.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: Pursuant to a statutory 
mandate, NHTSA proposes that the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard, which presently requires specified parts of high-theft 
vehicles to be marked with vehicle identification numbers (VINs), be 
extended to include all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less, 
and to light duty trucks with major parts that are interchangeable with 
a majority of the covered major parts of multipurpose passenger 
vehicles.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the 
Information: The identification of major parts (such as the engine, 
transmission, fenders, doors) of motor vehicle lines is designed to 
decrease automobile theft by making it more difficult for criminals to 
``chop'' vehicles into component parts and then fence such parts. The 
parts marking information aids law enforcement officials at all levels 
of government in the investigation of ``chop shops'' by creating 
evidence for prosecution of the operators for the possession of stolen 
motor vehicle parts.
    If the information were not available, the legislative goal of a 
comprehensive scheme against automobile theft would be frustrated. The 
Theft Prevention Standard would not effectively deter ``chop shop'' 
operators because law enforcement officials could not readily identify 
parts in the operators' possession as stolen. Also, without parts 
marking, when stolen parts are recovered, the parts could not be easily 
traced back to the owner and returned to the owner or insurer.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number, 
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information: 
NHTSA estimates 30 single and multi-stage motor vehicle manufacturers 
(manufacturers of passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles 
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less, and of 
light duty trucks with major parts that are interchangeable with a 
majority of the covered major parts of multipurpose passenger vehicles) 
would be affected by this proposed collection of information. Each 
manufacturer would be required to mark the 14 major parts of the motor 
vehicle it manufactures once, at the time the motor vehicle is 
manufactured.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden 
Resulting from the Collection of Information: The total annual 
reporting burden on motor vehicle manufacturers is estimated as 
follows:
    Estimate of Number of Affected Vehicles: At present, 9.3 million 
vehicles are high theft lines whose parts must be marked. If this 
proposed rule is made final, an additional 3.25 million vehicles would 
have their major parts marked, making a total of 12.55 million cars to 
be marked.
    Estimates of Burden Hours: The cost of labeling the major parts 
(i.e., a paper label with the VIN is placed on each major part) is less 
than the cost of stamping the VIN on each major part with a stamping 
machine. To meet the Theft Prevention Standard, the agency estimates 
that the time to number and affix each label to a major part is .2 
minutes. Thus, the time required to label each vehicle is approximately 
2.8 minutes (14 parts x .2 minutes). The additional hourly burden for 
labeling that would result if this proposed rule is made final is 
estimated to be 151,666 hours (3.25 million cars x 2.8 minutes per car/
60 minutes in an hour). This figure of 151,666 hours would be added to 
the existing 456,212 hours resulting from the costs of marking high 
theft lines. If this proposed rule is made final, the hourly burden for 
labeling all affected motor vehicles would be 607,878 hours.
    Estimates of Cost Burden: The agency estimates that the average 
cost in Year 2000 dollars (the latest year for which figures are 
available) to label the 14 parts is $6.03 per vehicle, broken down into 
$3.14 for material and $2.89 for labor. At present, 9.3 million high 
theft motor vehicles annually must have their major parts marked. At 
present, the total annual fleet costs are estimated at $56.08 million 
for label identifiers ($6.03 x 9.3 million vehicles). If this proposed 
rule is made final, the additional annual cost burden to industry is 
estimated at $19.6 million ($6.03 x 3.25 million vehicles). If this 
proposed rule is made final, the cost of labeling all affected motor 
vehicles would be $75.68 million.
    Reductions in Hours and Cost Burdens in Other Theft Program 
Collections: NHTSA also has a clearance to collect information pursuant 
to 49 CFR part 542, Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered Under 
the Theft Prevention Standard (OMB Clearance No. 5157-0539) for 640 
burden hours, and 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard (OMB Clearance No. 5157-0542) for 64 burden hours.
    If this proposed rule is made final, the part 542 procedure for 
manufacturers to make high theft/low theft

[[Page 43085]]

determinations of new passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle 
lines, and part 543 procedure for exemptions from parts marking for 
high theft passenger car and multipurpose passenger car lines would no 
longer be applicable. Part 542 and 543 procedures would then apply only 
to light trucks. NHTSA estimates that light trucks make up at most 25 
percent of total new passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, and 
light truck sales. For Theft Prevention Standard purposes, sport 
utility vehicles for the most part are classified as multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, because they are designed to carry passengers (See 
49 CFR 541.4(5)).
    Thus, NHTSA estimates that if this proposed rule is made final, the 
collection of information burden associated with part 542 would be 
reduced by 75 percent (since new passenger cars and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles would be excluded), and would decline from 640 hours 
to 160 hours. NHTSA estimates that if this proposed rule is made final, 
the collection of information burden associated with part 543 would be 
reduced by 75 percent, and would decline from 64 hours to 26 hours.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) directs NHTSA to use voluntary 
consensus standards in regulatory activities unless doing so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 
The NTTAA directs NHTSA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 
when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary 
consensus standards.
    There are no applicable voluntary consensus standards available at 
this time.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objective of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    If adopted, this proposed rule would not result in the expenditure 
by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of more than $100 million annually.

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:

--Has the agency organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could the agency improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
--What else could the agency do to make this rulemaking easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this NPRM.

J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Comments

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, the agency will also 
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that

[[Page 43086]]

date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for the agency 
to consider it in developing a final rule (assuming that one is 
issued), the agency will consider that comment as an informal 
suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    2. On that page, click on ``search.''
    3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-
digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: 
If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type ``1234.'' 
After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, 
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the 
documents are word searchable.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
the agency recommends that you periodically check the Docket for new 
material.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 541

    Administrative practice and procedure, Labeling, Motor vehicles, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 542

    Administrative practice and procedure, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, Reporting requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
Chapter V as follows:

PART 541--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT PREVENTION STANDARD

    1. The authority citation for part 541 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33101, 33102, 33103, 33105; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 541.3 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 541.3  Application.

    This standard applies to the following:
    (a) Passenger motor vehicle parts identified in Sec. 541.5(a) that 
are present:
    (1) In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less; and
    (2) In light duty trucks that NHTSA has finally determined, 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 542, to be high theft based on the 1990/91 
median theft rate.
    (b) Replacement parts for passenger motor vehicles described in 
Sec. 541.3(a)(1) and (2), if the part is identified in Sec. 541.5(a).
    (c) This standard does not apply to passenger motor vehicle parts 
that are present in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
and light duty trucks manufactured by a motor vehicle manufacturer that 
manufactures fewer than 500 vehicles for sale in the United States each 
year.

Appendix A to Part 541  [Removed]

    3. Appendix A to Part 541--Lines Subject to the Requirements of 
This Standard would be removed.
    4. Section 541.5 would be amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (e)(2) as follows:


Sec. 541.5  Requirements for passenger motor vehicles.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Each manufacturer subject to paragraph (e)(1) of this section 
shall, not later than 30 days before the line is introduced into 
commerce, inform NHTSA in writing of the target areas designated for 
each line subject to this standard. * * *
* * * * *

PART 542--PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING LINES TO BE COVERED BY THE THEFT 
PREVENTION STANDARD

    5. The authority citation for part 542 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2021, 2022, and 2023; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    6. Section 542.3 would be added to read as follows:


Sec. 542.3  Procedures for selecting low theft light duty truck lines 
with a majority of major parts interchangeable with those of a 
multipurpose passenger vehicle line.

    (a) Scope. This section sets forth the procedures for motor vehicle 
manufacturers and NHTSA to follow in the determination of whether any 
light duty truck lines that have or are likely to have a low theft rate 
have major parts interchangeable with a majority of the covered major 
parts of a multipurpose passenger vehicle line.
    (b) Application. These procedures apply to:
    (1) Each manufacturer that produces--
    (i) At least one multipurpose passenger vehicle line that has been 
or will be introduced into commerce in the United States, and
    (ii) At least one light duty truck line that has been or will be 
introduced into commerce in the United States and that the manufacturer 
identifies as likely to have a theft rate below the median theft rate; 
and
    (2) Each of those likely submedian theft rate light duty truck 
lines.
    (c) Procedures. (1) For each light duty truck line that a 
manufacturer identifies under appendix C of part 541 of this chapter as 
having or likely to have a theft rate below the median rate, the 
manufacturer identifies how many and which of the major parts of that 
line will be interchangeable with the covered major parts of any of its 
multipurpose passenger vehicle lines.
    (2) If the manufacturer concludes that a light duty truck line that 
has or is likely to have a theft rate below the median theft rate has 
major parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered 
major parts of a multipurpose passenger vehicle line, the manufacturer 
determines whether all the vehicles of those lines with submedian or 
likely submedian theft rates and interchangeable parts will account for 
more than 90 percent of the total annual production of all of the 
manufacturer's lines with those interchangeable parts.
    (3) The manufacturer submits its evaluations and conclusions made 
under paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, together with the 
underlying factual information, to NHTSA not less than 15 months before 
the date of introduction. During this period, the manufacturer may 
request a meeting with the agency to further explain the bases for its 
evaluations and conclusions.
    (4) Within 90 days after its receipt of the manufacturer's 
submission under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, NHTSA considers that 
submission, if any, and

[[Page 43087]]

independently makes, on a preliminary basis, the determinations of 
those light duty truck lines with submedian or likely submedian theft 
rates which should or should not be subject to Sec. 541.5 of this 
chapter. NHTSA informs the manufacturer by letter of the agency's 
preliminary determinations, together with the factual information 
considered by the agency in making them.
    (5) The manufacturer may request the agency to reconsider any of 
its preliminary determinations made under paragraph (c)(4) of this 
section. The manufacturer must submit its request to the agency within 
30 days of its receipt of the letter under paragraph (c)(4) of this 
section informing it of the agency's evaluations and preliminary 
determinations. The request must include the facts and arguments 
underlying the manufacturer's objections to the agency's preliminary 
determinations. During this 30-day period, the manufacturer may also 
request a meeting with the agency to discuss those objections.
    (6) Each of the agency's preliminary determinations made under 
paragraph (c)(4) of this section becomes final 45 days after the agency 
sends the letter specified in that paragraph unless a request for 
reconsideration has been received in accordance with paragraph (c)(5) 
of this section. If such a request has been received, the agency makes 
its final determinations within 60 days of its receipt of the request. 
NHTSA informs the manufacturer by letter of those determinations and 
its response to the request for reconsideration.

    Issued: June 18, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 02-15903 Filed 6-25-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P