[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 6, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50981-50982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19841]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Code of Federal Regulations

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies the petition submitted by Nicholas Bromer 
to amend the Code of Federal Regulations to require vehicles to be 
equipped with vehicle identification number-encoded brake and/or rear 
running lamps to assist law enforcement in more accurately identifying 
motor vehicles and in combating vehicle theft.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of Safety 
Performance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-4807. Her facsimile 
number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

    By letter dated December 3, 2001, Nicholas Bromer petitioned the 
agency to amend the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to require that 
brake and/or running lamps for vehicles be equipped with flickering, 
red, light-emitting diodes (LEDs) encoded with the vehicle 
identification number (VIN) or a derivative of the VIN to assist law 
enforcement in the accurate identification of vehicles from any 
distance. Mr. Bromer did not identify the regulation within the CFR he 
was petitioning the agency to amend.
    Mr. Bromer's idea is that, once a vehicle is reported stolen, its 
VIN would be put into a database. Automatic scanners placed on the 
roadside or on overpasses would check each passing vehicle against a 
list of stolen or wanted vehicles. Simultaneously, law enforcement 
authorities would be alerted. The LEDs would radiate the VIN in a 
binary digital format, rapidly turning on and off and capable of 
flickering out a complete VIN in a thousandth of a second. The 
petitioner asserted that the flickering would be invisible to the human 
eye and would slightly decrease the brightness of the brake or running 
lights. A light-sensing detector, aimed at the flickering lamp can read 
the VIN. The system will sort out the flickering light patterns from 
background noise, decode the flickering and access a databank. 
According to the petitioner, intermittent flickering, flickers from two 
different vehicles, both in a group of vehicles in optical range of a 
detector are unlikely to overlap, thus allowing the identification of 
both vehicles. Because flickering a complete VIN only takes a 
thousandth of a second, the flicker repetition interval can be much 
longer than that, while still insuring that there are plenty of 
flickers from each vehicle for the detector to register. Therefore, a 
detector can easily read the VINs of a large group of vehicles 
flickering simultaneously. The petitioner also asserted that because 
the brakes or running lamps would only flicker for a small proportion 
of time, its brightness would only be slightly decreased, by about 1 
percent.
    The Bromer system allows augmented VINs with at least one secret 
character or numeral. The VIN plate, vehicle title, and other public 
records would omit the secret portion of the VIN, which would be kept 
in a central databank. When a complete VIN is sent to the database, the 
incoming identifier would be checked against a secret database. The 
database response would read either ``authentic'' or ``fake''.
    The petitioner suggests that the system could be used to record all 
vehicles that have entered a building or area, or that law enforcement 
could use it to determine the history of any vehicle prior to making 
contact with the driver. The petitioner even states that owner 
information such as the owner's criminal record could also be made 
available.

Background

    Since Mr. Bromer's request for amending the CFR did not identify a 
particular regulation, the agency believes that there are three 
regulations that may be relevant to his petition. Those applicable 
regulations are: 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 
114, Theft Protection; and FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, 
and Associated Equipment. In addition, there is the possibility that 
the agency could issue a new FMVSS.

Agency Analysis

    In 1984, Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement 
Act (the 1984 Theft Act) in response to escalating motor vehicle thefts 
(Pub. L. 98-547). 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. The 1984 Theft Act is codified at 49 U.S.C. 33101. 
Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331, Theft Prevention, NHTSA has the authority 
to develop standards to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle theft. 
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. Manufacturers of these high-theft passenger motor vehicle lines 
must mark the certain ``major parts'' in those lines with the vehicle 
identification number (VIN). Subsequently, Congress enacted the Anti 
Car Theft Act of 1992 (the 1992 Theft Act). The 1992 Theft Act (59 FR 
64164, December 13, 1994) extended the parts marking requirements to 
multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) (i.e., passenger vans and sports 
utility vehicles) and light trucks (pickup trucks) 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. However, neither Act provides NHTSA with the 
authority to mandate that a manufacturer be required to use a 
particular parts marking system such as that suggested by Mr. Bromer, 
on its motor vehicle lines.

[[Page 50982]]

    Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, NHTSA has the 
authority to develop standards to reduce the incidence of crashes, and 
deaths and injuries resulting from crashes. FMVSS No.114, Theft 
Protection, specifies requirements to reduce the incidence of crashes 
that result from unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The standard 
accomplishes this by requiring that vehicles be equipped with a system 
to warn the driver/operator when his/her keys are left in the ignition 
and the door is opened. This warning serves as a reminder to the owner 
operator to remove his or her keys, consequently protecting the vehicle 
from unauthorized use. In contrast, the goal of the petitioner's system 
is to identify stolen vehicles for purposes of recovery.
    FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, 
specifies requirements to reduce the incidence of crashes through the 
use of exterior vehicle lighting devices. The standard accomplishes 
this by setting performance and installation requirements for such 
devices and motor vehicles so that the vehicles are conspicuous, that 
the roadway is illuminated, and that important information about 
drivers' intentions are signaled to other drivers.
    For the Bromer system to be effective, the stop and/or taillamps 
would need to be on all the time. Under current Federal lighting 
requirements, taillamps need to be on only when headlamps are on. Per 
state laws this is mostly during the nighttime. Thus, the only time the 
VIN information would be transmitted through taillamps would be at 
night. The total percentage of vehicle travel at night is low. As the 
petitioner stated, there would likely be no visual perception of the 
data being transmitted, but there is the possibility of slight 
intensity reduction. To this extent, the taillamp would still be 
required to comply with the specified intensity requirements for 
taillamps.
    Stop lamps using the Bromer system could transmit only the VIN 
information when these lamps were actuated during braking, further 
reducing the total time that any VIN signal would be transmitted. Thus, 
in order for the system to be effective, the taillamps and/or stop 
lamps would need to be on all the time. The stop lamps could not be 
permitted to do this for obvious safety reasons. Additionally, 
operation of the stop lamps without braking is not permitted by FMVSS 
No. 108.
    There is the possibility of developing a new FMVSS. As it is, the 
Bromer system could help in recovering a vehicle during the period 
between when it is reported stolen and logged into the system, and when 
the system is disabled. Possibly, if the Bromer system is not disabled, 
it could identify the vehicle as stolen if it were to be resold. The 
likelihood of vehicle recovery could be very high if the Bromer system 
were not disabled immediately or shortly after being initially stolen. 
Conversely, the effectiveness of the Bromer system could be low if a 
thief immediately disabled the device at the time of theft or within a 
few minutes of when the vehicle could be stopped. At that point, the 
vehicle would become like any other vehicle, having no emitted signal 
and invisible to a police cruiser's receiver.
    Relative to the system operating through Federally required signal 
lighting, the Bromer system would require all motor vehicles to use LED 
technology for stop and/or taillamps. Most vehicles would have to be 
equipped with LEDs at some expense ($10 to $30 per vehicle at a 
minimum). There would also be an additional cost for the installation 
of the vehicle transmitter circuitry. Because few vehicles use LEDs, 
mandating their use would certainly increase the cost of most vehicles.
    An additional consideration is that such a system, if Federally 
mandated for installation on motor vehicles, would have to be 
accompanied by a receiver installed in every police vehicle throughout 
the United States if the system's goals were to be fully realized. If 
NHTSA were to mandate this, it would be many years until the entire 
fleet of citizen vehicles and police vehicles were equipped and 
compatible. Also, a system for national distribution of computer 
programs to law enforcement jurisdictions and the national and 
immediate distribution of stolen vehicle VINs would have to be 
implemented. This could impose substantial costs to states. In sum, we 
believe that the cost to manufacturers, vehicle owners and states 
outweigh any possible benefits that the Bromer system might have in 
reducing motor vehicle theft and increasing vehicle recovery.
    A final concern is that each vehicle transmitting this unique 
information would instantly provide the police and any other person 
having access to a system receiver, the whereabouts of the vehicle and 
its owner or operator. Transmitting this type of information may 
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy to the persons 
who would be identified (5 U.S.C. 552(b)6)).
    This completes the agency's technical review, and, on the basis of 
the foregoing, the agency has decided to deny Mr. Bromer's petition.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33102-33104 and 33106; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: August 1, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 02-19841 Filed 8-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P