[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 6, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17960-17969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-7492]



[[Page 17960]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 541, 542 and 543

[Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12231]
RIN 2127-A146


Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The final rule extends NHTSA's anti-theft parts marking 
requirement to two different groups of vehicles. First, the Anti Car 
Theft Act of 1992 required the Attorney General to make a finding that 
NHTSA ``shall apply'' the parts marking requirements to below median 
theft rate passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 
gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less, unless the 
Attorney General found that the extension would not substantially 
inhibit chop shop operations and motor vehicle thefts. The Attorney 
General did not make that finding about the extension. Accordingly, the 
Attorney General found that the standard should be extended. Since the 
Attorney General found that the standard should be extended, NHTSA is 
required by the Act to issue this final rule extending the parts 
marking requirement to all below median theft rate passenger cars and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) that have a gross vehicle weight 
rating of 6,000 pounds or less, but have not been exempted under 49 CFR 
Part 543 on the grounds that they are equipped with an effective anti-
theft device as standard equipment.
    Second, to increase the effectiveness of the first extension, this 
final rule also extends the parts marking requirement to below median 
theft rate light duty trucks with major parts that are interchangeable 
with a majority of the covered major parts of the below median theft 
rate multipurpose passenger vehicles and other passenger motor vehicles 
made subject to the requirement by the first extension. If this 
additional extension were not made, it would reduce the ability of 
investigators to treat the absence of intact markings on these 
multipurpose passenger vehicles and other passenger vehicles as a ``red 
flag'' indicating a need for further investigation.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 1, 2006. Voluntary 
compliance is permitted before that time. If you wish to submit a 
petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be 
received by June 7, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
petitions received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the petition (or signing the petition, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 
19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy issues, you 
may contact Deborah Mazyck, Office of Planning and Consumer Standards, 
(Telephone: 202-366-0846) (Fax: 202-493-2290).
    For legal issues, you may contact George Feygin, Office of Chief 
Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background and Summary
    A. Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act (1984)
    B. Anti Car Theft Act of 1992
    C. Attorney General's Initial Report (2000)
    D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2002)
II. Final Rule
    A. Extension of Parts Marking
    1. Below Median Theft Rate Passenger Cars and Multipurpose 
Passenger Vehicles
    2. Below Median Theft Rate Light Duty Truck Lines Having Major 
Parts Interchangeable with Below Median Theft Rate Passenger Cars 
and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
    B. Continued Availability of Exemptions for Vehicles with 
Antitheft Devices
    C. Exclusion of Small Volume Manufacturers
    D. Other Issues
    1. More Permanent Methods of Parts Marking
    2. Marking of Air Bags and Window Glazing
    3. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
    4. National Stolen Passenger Motor Vehicle Information System
III. Appendix C to Part 541
IV. Cost
V. Effective Date
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background and Summary

A. 1984 Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act

    In 1984, Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement 
Act (the 1984 Theft Act), directing NHTSA to issue a theft prevention 
standard requiring vehicle manufacturers to mark the major parts \1\ of 
``high-theft'' \2\ lines of passenger motor vehicles (parts 
marking).\3\ ``Passenger motor vehicle'' was defined in the 1984 Theft 
Act so as to exclude multipurpose passenger cars, leaving passenger 
cars as the only included type of vehicle. Pursuant to that mandate, 
NHTSA issued a standard requiring the marking of the major parts of 
passenger cars as well as the marking of replacement parts for those 
major parts. The standard, found at 49 CFR Part 541, became effective 
on April 24, 1986.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Currently, the list of major parts includes: 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. See 49 CFR 541.5.
    \2\ Under the 1984 Theft Act, a ``high theft'' vehicle had or 
was likely to have had a theft rate greater than the median theft 
rate for all new vehicles for calendar years 1983 and 1984. Vehicles 
with theft rates higher (or lower) than the median theft rate are 
sometimes referred to in this document as ``higher (or lower) than 
median theft rate.''
    \3\ See Pub. L. 98-547.
    \4\ See 50 FR 43166 (October 24, 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The parts marking requirement has remained largely unchanged over 
the years. Manufacturers can meet the parts marking requirement with 
indelibly marked labels that cannot be removed without becoming torn or 
rendering the number on the label illegible. If removed, the label must 
leave a residue on the part 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''.
    As explained in a July 1998 agency report to Congress updating the 
findings of a 1991 agency report to Congress and evaluating the effects 
of the 1984 and 1992 Acts,\5\ NHTSA stated that parts marking deters 
motor vehicle theft and aids theft investigators by (1) allowing 
investigators to trace a stolen car more easily to its owner, prove it 
was stolen, and make an arrest; (2) allowing investigators in most 
jurisdictions to treat the absence of intact markings as

[[Page 17961]]

a ``red flag'' indicating a need for further investigation; and (3) in 
those jurisdictions requiring inspections of restored cars before they 
can be retitled, assisting officers in identifying vehicles that have 
been reassembled using stolen parts. Additionally, the agency noted 
that parts marking provides a useful tool in prosecuting chop shop 
owners and dealers of stolen vehicles and parts. Facilitating the 
prosecution of thieves, operators of chop shops, and dealers in stolen 
parts is a significant deterrent to motor vehicle theft and the 
operation of chop shops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See July 1998 Report to Congress (Docket No. NHTSA-2002-
12231-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1984 Theft Act authorized exemptions from the parts marking 
requirement for vehicle lines in which antitheft devices were installed 
as standard equipment. Manufacturers were allowed to obtain two new 
exemptions per model year through the 1996 model year. Beginning with 
the 1997 model year, manufacturers were allowed to obtain one new 
exemption per model year. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 49 CFR Part 543.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Anti Car Theft Act of 1992

    As a result of a 1991 agency report to Congress and other 
information, Congress enacted the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (the 1992 
Theft Act).\7\ The 1992 Theft Act expanded the application of the parts 
marking requirement by expanding the definition of ``passenger motor 
vehicle'' to include multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) (i.e., 
passenger vans and sport utility vehicles) and light duty trucks (LDTs) 
(i.e., pickup trucks and cargo vans) with a gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less.\8\ This definitional change brought 
above median theft rate MPVs and LDTs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or 
less within the parts marking requirement. Additionally, the 1992 Theft 
Act also expanded the group of vehicles considered to be ``high theft'' 
\9\ to include passenger motor vehicle lines that had or were likely to 
have theft rates below the median theft rate, but had major parts that 
were interchangeable with major parts of above median theft rate 
vehicles.\10\ Finally, the 1992 Theft Act mandated that NHTSA apply the 
parts marking requirement to not more than 50% of the below median 
theft rate passenger vehicles (other than LDTs) that were not otherwise 
subject to that requirement.\11\ NHTSA implemented these amendments in 
a final rule that was published on December 13, 1994, and became 
effective on October 25, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Pub. L. 102-519. October 25, 1992, codified in 49 U.S.C. 
Chapter 331. Theft Prevention.
    \8\ See 49 U.S.C. 33101(10).
    \9\ Under the 1992 Theft Act, a ``high theft'' vehicle has or is 
likely to have a theft rate greater than the median theft rate for 
all new vehicles in the 2-year period covering calendar years 1990 
and 1991. See 49 U.S.C. 33104(a)(1).
    \10\ See 49 U.S.C. 33104(a)(1)(C).
    \11\ See 49 U.S.C. 33103(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to making immediate changes in the application of the 
parts marking requirement, the 1992 Theft Act also required the 
Attorney General to conduct two separate reviews relating to parts 
marking and issue separate findings based on each review.
    First, the 1992 Theft Act required the Attorney General to conduct 
an initial review of effectiveness and make a finding requiring that 
the Secretary of Transportation expand the parts marking requirement to 
all remaining lines of passenger motor vehicles (except LTDs), unless 
the Attorney General found instead that extending the requirement would 
not substantially inhibit chop shop operations and motor vehicle 
theft.\12\ In effect, Congress created a rebuttable presumption, i.e., 
parts marking should be expanded unless the Attorney General was able 
to make a finding against the effectiveness of parts marking. As will 
be discussed in greater detail below, the Attorney General did not make 
such a finding. \13\ Accordingly, the Attorney General concluded that 
the parts marking requirement should be expanded. As a result of this 
finding, and in accordance with the 1992 Theft Act, we issue this final 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 49 U.S.C. 33103(c).
    \13\ Attorney General's Initial Review of Effectiveness is 
entitled ``The Initial Report.'' See Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12231-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the 1992 Theft Act requires the Attorney General to conduct 
a long-range review of parts marking effectiveness.\14\ The Attorney 
General must make separate findings whether (a) parts marking has been 
effective in substantially inhibiting chop shop operations and motor 
vehicle theft,\15\ and (b) whether the anti-theft devices for which the 
agency has granted exemptions are an effective substitute for parts 
marking in inhibiting motor vehicle theft.\16\ If the Attorney General 
finds that the application of the parts marking requirement has not 
been effective, the agency must terminate the parts marking 
requirement. Only if the Attorney General finds that the anti-theft 
devices are an effective substitute can the agency continue to issue 
exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 49 U.S.C. 33103(d)(1).
    \15\ See 49 U.S.C. 33103(d)(1)(A).
    \16\ See 49 U.S.C. 33103(d)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Attorney General's Initial Report (2000)

    On July 21, 2000, the Attorney General transmitted to the Secretary 
of Transportation a report containing the results of the initial 
review. In the report, the Attorney General noted that
    Under the Act, the Secretary is required to apply the theft 
standard to the remaining motor vehicle lines:

unless the Attorney General finds * * * that applying the [vehicle 
theft prevention standard] to the remaining lines of passenger motor 
vehicles (except light duty trucks) not covered by that standard 
would not substantially inhibit chop shop operations and motor 
vehicle thefts.

    The Attorney General did not make such a finding. Accordingly, the 
Attorney General concluded that the parts marking requirement should be 
expanded as required by the 1992 Act, because she could not find 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:

    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.

    Accordingly, the Attorney General instead concluded that the parts 
marking requirement should be expanded as required by the 1992 Act. 
Thus, in accordance with requirements of 1992 Theft Act, NHTSA was 
required to conduct a rulemaking proceeding extending the parts marking 
requirement.

D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2002)

    Pursuant to the Initial Report, on June 26, 2002, NHTSA published a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to extend the parts marking 
requirement to all passenger cars and MPVs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds 
or less (67 FR 43075) [Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12231]. NHTSA also 
proposed to extend the requirement to LTDs with major parts that are 
interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of MPVs. In 
addition, NHTSA requested comments on (1) more permanent methods of 
parts marking and (2) marking air bags and window glazing.

[[Page 17962]]

    NHTSA received 17 comments on the NPRM from automobile 
manufacturers and their trade associations, a trade association for 
automobile dealers, the insurance industry, law enforcement agencies, 
automobile parts manufacturers and special interest groups. Some 
comments supported the agency's proposal to expand the parts marking 
requirement, while other opposed it. In preparing its responses to the 
various comments questioning the Attorney General's Initial Report and 
finding, NHTSA informally consulted with officials at the U.S. 
Department of Justice, advising them of those comments and providing 
them with a draft of this notice.
    After reviewing the comments, and in accordance with requirements 
of the 1992 Theft Act, NHTSA is extending the parts marking requirement 
to all lower than median theft rate passenger cars and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. The agency is 
also extending the requirement to light duty trucks with major parts 
that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of 
multipurpose passenger vehicles. At this time, NHTSA is not planning to 
propose requiring a more permanent method of parts marking. It is also 
not planning to seek authority to add air bags and glazing to the list 
of parts that must be marked.

II. Final Rule

A. Extension of Parts Marking

1. Below Median Theft Rate Theft Passenger Cars and Multipurpose 
Passenger Vehicles
    A number of commenters from the automobile industry, including 
manufacturers and trade associations, collaterally challenged the 
Attorney General's initial report to DOT, arguing that the parts 
marking requirement should not be extended because the report does not 
conclusively prove the effectiveness of parts marking or that the basis 
for the report is inadequate. Specifically, Association of 
International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) commented that the 
Attorney General's finding does not conclusively demonstrate that 
expansion of parts marking requirements will be effective in reducing 
motor vehicle theft and chop shop operations.\17\ In contrast, special 
interest and law enforcement groups supported parts marking as an 
effective deterrent to chop shop operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12231-13. See also National 
Automobile Dealer's Association (NADA) comment. NADA commented that 
the Attorney General's finding has not proven parts marking to be 
effective, but also conceded that the standard's questionable 
effectiveness might partially be due to its underutilization by the 
insurance industry and by law enforcement. (Docket No. NHTSA-2002-
12231-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The automobile industry criticisms of the Attorney General's 
finding appear to be based on an incorrect understanding of the 1992 
Theft Act. The 1992 Theft Act did not premise the extension of the 
parts marking requirement upon the Attorney General's issuance of a 
report proving the effectiveness of parts marking. Instead, Congress 
mandated that NHTSA extend parts marking unless the Attorney General 
found that parts marking is not effective. While the mandate renders 
the criticisms of the Attorney General's initial report essentially 
inapposite for the purposes of this final rule, we note that the 
Attorney General's report did, in fact, reflect consideration of all of 
the factors (e.g., additional costs, effectiveness, competition, and 
available alternative factors) specified by the 1992 Theft Act. See 49 
U.S.C. 33103(c). The details of the criticisms of the report are 
discussed below.
    In its comments, Volkswagen (VW) alleged that the Attorney 
General's finding was ``based to a great extent on anecdotal input from 
a few law enforcement organizations.'' This is an inaccurate 
characterization of the basis for the Attorney General's finding. In 
preparing the July 2000 initial report, the Attorney General relied on 
a cross-sectional time series analysis of auto theft data, and a law 
enforcement personnel survey, both prepared by Abt Associates. The Abt 
Associates report, along with information generated from public 
comments on the effectiveness of parts marking, resulted in 
determination that parts marking is a cost effective method of reducing 
auto theft. As to the law enforcement survey, the Attorney General 
found that it ``supports the expansion of parts marking.''

    All but one of the 47 investigators surveyed by Abt Associates 
believed that auto parts marking should be extended to all 
automobile lines and to all types of noncommercial vehicles, 
especially to pickup trucks. The majority of the investigators 
surveyed indicated that marking vehicle parts aids in identifying 
and arresting those involved in trafficking in stolen vehicles and 
stolen parts. Specifically, 75 percent of the auto theft 
investigators from big cities surveyed felt that parts marking is 
useful or very useful in arresting chop shop owners and operators 
and those who deal in stolen vehicles.
    Investigators identified four ways in which the marking of auto 
parts provides assistance.

    The agency believes that the data sufficiently support the 
conclusion that 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.'' Abt Associates utilized all available 
information to prepare the DOJ report on the effectiveness of expanding 
the auto parts marking.
    In its first comment, DaimlerChrysler suggested that the Attorney 
General's findings did not adequately consider the statutory factors in 
49 U.S.C. 33103 (c). In response to this comment, we note that the 
Attorney General considered the factors of cost, effectiveness, 
competition, and available alternative factors, as required by 49 
U.S.C. 33103 (c). Specifically, Attorney General noted that NHTSA had 
found that estimated costs of parts marking is substantially less than 
the statutory limit of $24.86 (in 2000 dollars) per vehicle and that 
the cost for even small manufacturers was less than the statutory 
limit. With respect to effectiveness, the Attorney General noted that 
the theft ``investigators identified the lack of permanence as the most 
significant obstacle to increasing the effective use of markings' and 
urged ``DOT to require permanent, non-removable markings.'' After 
evaluating the effect on competition, the Attorney General found that 
extending the parts marking requirement would not harm competition. In 
evaluating available alternative factors, the Attorney General 
considered the availability of alternative methods of reducing theft. 
She concluded that anti-theft devices best serve their purpose when 
they are used in conjunction with parts marking, and not as a 
substitute for parts marking.
    On February 13, 2003, DaimlerChrysler (DC) submitted additional 
comments.\18\ In those comments, DC suggested that NHTSA refrain from 
issuing a final rule because it believed that NHTSA had not yet 
received from DOJ ``all the information supporting'' Attorney General's 
finding on parts marking effectiveness, as required by 49 U.S.C. 
33103(c). The Attorney General's Report included a summary of a comment 
from Volvo Cars of North America (Volvo). DC states that it was unable 
to obtain a copy of the Volvo comment from DOJ and that the document 
did not appear to exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12231-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received the full record from the Attorney General, 
including the letter submitted by Volvo. The letter submitted by Volvo 
was placed in the

[[Page 17963]]

docket on November 6, 2003.\19\ In its comments about the Volvo 
submission to the Attorney General, DaimlerChrysler stated that the 
Attorney General's report is inconclusive because Volvo has commented 
``insurance data supports no marking for low theft cars with anti-theft 
devices.'' We note that Volvo did not present any insurance data that 
would indicate that parts marking would not substantially inhibit chop 
shop operations. Instead, Volvo simply presented evidence showing that 
certain vehicles equipped with anti-theft devices have lower-than 
average theft rate. These data do not in any way support a finding that 
expanded parts marking would not substantially inhibit chop shop 
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12231-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 
suggested that they were denied a complete, meaningful opportunity to 
comment on NHTSA's proposal because the public comments submitted in 
response to the Department of Justice's September 11, 1998 request for 
comments (63 FR 48758) in connection with its initial review were not 
available in NHTSA's docket during the comment period. We disagree. As 
noted above, the statutory mandate to extend the parts marking 
requirement based on the Attorney General's findings renders the 
criticisms of the Attorney General's initial report essentially 
inapposite for the purposes of this final rule. Likewise, the mandate 
renders the record on which the Attorney General based her report 
inapposite for the purposes of this final rule. The 1992 Act does not 
contemplate that this agency should base its decision in this 
rulemaking on the record compiled by the Attorney General.
    Ford asserted that the Attorney General did not separately consider 
the effectiveness of passive anti-theft systems.\20\ As previously 
discussed, the Attorney General considered anti-theft systems as an 
alternative to parts marking and concluded that anti-theft devices 
should be used in conjunction with parts marking, as opposed to as a 
replacement of parts marking. We note that 49 U.S.C. 33103 (c) did not 
require that the Attorney General to find a single most effective anti-
theft device. Instead, the inquiry was limited to whether available 
information indicated that expanded parts marking requirement would not 
substantially inhibit chop shop operations. The fact that a passive 
anti-theft device could also act to inhibit chop-shop operations does 
not release NHTSA from a legal obligation to extend the parts marking 
requirement based on Attorney General's findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12231-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the 1992 Theft Act requires NHTSA to extend the 
parts marking requirements, unless the Attorney General finds in his 
Initial Report on parts marking effectiveness that such a requirement 
would not substantially inhibit chop shop operations and motor vehicle 
thefts. Since the Attorney General did not make that finding, NHTSA 
must complete a rulemaking to extend the standard. In its comment, 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety emphasized this point by stating 
that: ``the Secretary of Transportation, and by delegation NHTSA, has 
no legal option other than to expand parts marking requirement * * * '' 
and ``In light of the Attorney General's conclusion that vehicle parts 
marking is an effective deterrent to auto theft, the agency is 
statutorily required to extend the scope of the Theft Prevention 
Standard * * *.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12231-23; see also comments by 
VW, acknowledging that NHTSA is obligated to expand parts marking 
based on Attorney General's finding (NHTSA-2002-12231-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Below Median Theft Rate Light Duty Truck Lines Having Major Parts 
Interchangeable With Below Median Theft Rate Passenger Cars and 
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
    The 1992 Theft Act mandated the extension of the parts marking 
requirement to above median theft rate MPVs and LDTs, to below median 
theft rate MPVs and LDTs that have major parts that are interchangeable 
with the major parts of above median theft rate vehicles, and to the 
below median theft rate MPVs covered by this final rule. However, the 
Act did not mandate the extension of the requirement to other below 
median theft rate LDTs.
    Extension of parts marking to below median theft rate MPVs, but not 
to below median theft rate LDTs, would have created a situation in 
which the major parts of below median theft rate MPVs would be marked, 
while below median theft rate LDTs that share major parts with these 
same MPVs would not be subject to parts marking requirements. Failure 
to apply the parts marking requirement to these below median theft rate 
LDTs would create a supply of legally unmarked parts interchangeable 
with the marked parts of the below median theft rate MPVs. This could 
confuse law enforcement personnel and hinder effective prosecution of 
chop shop operators. This is because it would have been difficult or 
even impossible to draw, with any confidence, inferences from the 
absence of a mark on a major part on a below median theft rate MPV. 
Such a part might have been one that originally been required to be 
marked, but had its marking removed because the part came from a stolen 
vehicle. But such a part also might have come from a below median theft 
rate vehicle whose parts were not required to be marked. In order to 
remedy this potential problem, we proposed that below median theft rate 
LDTs that have major parts interchangeable with below median theft rate 
MPVs would be subject to parts marking requirements.
    We received a single comment on this proposal. In its comments, 
NADA questioned NHTSA's statutory authority for adopting this proposal. 
Nevertheless, NADA did not oppose the concept.
    As noted above, below median theft rate LDTs were not included in 
the mandate for extension of the parts marking requirement.\22\ Because 
below median theft rate LDTs not otherwise subject to parts marking 
requirement may have major parts that are interchangeable with MPVs 
that are subject to parts marking requirement, we find it necessary to 
use our implied discretionary authority to require that both types of 
vehicles with interchangeable parts be parts marked. Congress addressed 
the issue of whether to make a general extension of parts marking to 
all remaining vehicles. It decided to mandate extending parts marking 
generally to remaining cars and MPVs, but not to mandate its extension 
generally to remaining LDTs. However, it did not address the narrower 
and more focused issue of whether supplementary action involving some 
of the remaining LDTs was necessary to make that extension to remaining 
cars and MPVs effective. Congress has already made the judgment that 
coverage of vehicles with interchangeable parts is necessary and 
appropriate to making parts marking effective for vehicles with theft 
rates above the median. We believe that a similar judgment is warranted 
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 49 U.S.C. 33103(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 49 U.S.C. 33104(2), below median theft rate passenger motor 
vehicles (including MPVs and LDTs) cannot be subjected to parts marking 
based on interchangeability of parts if the below median theft rate 
vehicles account for more than 90 percent of total annual production of 
all lines of vehicles that may contain these interchangeable parts. 
This statutory exclusion applies to below median theft rate vehicles if 
they account for more than 90 percent of total annual production of all 
lines of vehicles

[[Page 17964]]

containing interchangeable parts. For example, if a given below median 
theft rate LDT line would become subject to parts marking pursuant to 
this final rule because it shares major parts with an MPV line that is 
also subject to parts marking requirement, the LDT line would 
nevertheless be excluded if it accounted for more than 90 of total 
production of both lines.
    NHTSA has also decided to extend parts marking to those below 
median theft rate LDTs that have major parts interchangeable with 
passenger cars. We believe that extending this requirement to passenger 
cars is consistent with the intent of both the 1992 Theft Act and the 
NPRM. NHTSA does not anticipate any additional burdens on the 
manufacturers as a result of this additional extension because we are 
unaware of any LDTs that have parts that are interchangeable with 
passenger motor vehicles other than MPVs. However, in the future, a 
manufacturer could produce an LDT with major parts interchangeable with 
a passenger motor vehicle other than an MPV. This additional 
requirement anticipates this possibility. As previously discussed, an 
LDT line that accounts for more than 90 percent of the total production 
of all lines containing parts interchangeable with the parts of that 
line would be excluded from this requirement.
    As of the effective date of this final rule, manufacturers will 
have to report to NHTSA new and existing LTD lines with a majority of 
major parts interchangeable with passenger cars and MPVs pursuant to 49 
CFR 542.2.

B. Continued Availability of Exemptions for Vehicles With Antitheft 
Devices

    Section 33106 of 49 U.S.C., Chapter 331, provides that vehicle 
manufacturers of a high-theft vehicle lines may petition NHTSA for an 
exemption from the parts-marking requirements, including this parts 
marking expansion pursuant to the Attorney General's initial report, 
based on availability of an anti-theft device. NHTSA may exempt a high 
theft vehicle line from the parts marking requirement if the 
manufacturer installs an antitheft device as standard equipment on the 
entire vehicle line for which it seeks an exemption, and NHTSA 
determines that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective in 
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the part-
marking requirements.
    Manufacturers were permitted to receive up to two new exemptions 
per model year for model years 1988-1996. For model years 1997-2000, 
manufacturers were permitted only one new exemption per model year. 
After model year 2000, the number of new exemptions is contingent on a 
finding by the Attorney General, which will be part of a long-range 
review of effectiveness, to be conducted after this final rule is 
published. As discussed in the NPRM, after consulting with DOJ, the 
agency decided it could continue granting one exemption per model year 
pending the results of the long-term review.
    This final rule will not affect the granting of anti-theft device 
exemptions. Commenters indicated support for these exemptions. The 
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) noted that, as 
currently drafted, Part 543 applies only to high-theft vehicles and 
suggested that NHTSA revise this language to allow exemptions for all 
vehicles subject to the parts marking requirement. The agency agrees 
with this suggestion and is making that change in this final rule. 
However, the agency emphasizes that manufacturers are still limited to 
one new exemption per model year.

C. Exclusion of Small Volume Manufacturers

    Currently, there are approximately four 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.\23\ 
Extending the theft prevention standard to all passenger cars and MPVs 
would require these manufacturers to comply with the standard for the 
first time. In the NPRM, the agency noted that fixed costs associated 
with parts marking would be spread over a smaller number of vehicles 
for these manufacturers, resulting in higher per vehicle costs. The 
agency estimated that these fixed costs would cause the per vehicle 
costs to exceed the statutory limit for manufacturers making fewer than 
373 vehicles each year for sale in the United States. Therefore, the 
agency proposed to exclude those manufacturers who make fewer than 500 
vehicles for sale in the United States each year from the parts marking 
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Alliance, AIAM, Ferrari and Lamborghini commented on the number 
of vehicles that defined a small volume manufacturer. Each of the 
commenters urged the agency to change the definition of a small volume 
manufacturer from those who make fewer than 500 vehicles for sale in 
the United States each year to those who make fewer than 5,000 vehicles 
for sale in the United States each year. Lamborghini and the Alliance 
pointed out that the definition should be the same for all safety 
standards, as it is for the Environmental Protection Agency and 
California Air Resources Board emissions regulations. AIAM noted that 
due to the limited market for their replacement parts, these vehicles 
are unlikely targets of thieves who would sell parts off of the 
vehicle. Commenters were also divided on whether or not small volume 
manufacturers could comply with the parts marking requirement within 
the statutory cost limit.
    Further analysis of data with respect to theft rates of vehicles 
produced by small volume manufacturers indicates that a very limited 
number of these vehicles are stolen. Model Year 2001 Preliminary Theft 
Data showed only two vehicles produced by manufacturers that produce 
fewer than 5,000 vehicles were stolen in calendar year 2001. We note 
that stolen parts from low production vehicles may be a less marketable 
commodity to chop shop operators, because owners buy exclusively from 
authorized service facilities. Additionally, NHTSA has taken into 
account the definition of ``small volume manufacturer'' in the vehicle 
standards and believes that the definition of ``small volume 
manufacturers'' here should, in the interest of consistency, be 
expanded to include those manufacturers who make fewer than 5,000 
vehicles for sale in the U.S. each year. Therefore, those manufacturers 
who make fewer than 5,000 vehicles for sale in the U.S. each year will 
be excluded from the expansion of the theft prevention standard.

D. Other Issues

1. More Permanent Methods of Parts Marking
    In the NPRM, NHTSA stated that the agency is considering proposing 
performance requirements that would necessitate the use of more 
permanent methods of parts marking. The NPRM included several questions 
similar to the questions that the agency asked when it published the 
preliminary version of its 1998 Report to Congress.
    Most commenters strongly recommend identifying and evaluating the 
costs associated with more permanent methods before a final rule is 
issued. The comments support performance requirements that would 
necessitate the use of more permanent parts marking methods. Subsequent 
to the comment-closing period, the agency received information from 
four

[[Page 17965]]

companies relative to more permanent marking methods.
    DataDot Technology presented information on vehicle identification 
in the form of microdots that could be sprayed on specific parts of the 
motor vehicle, each of which incorporate the Vehicle Identification 
Number (VIN). Retainagroup provided the agency with information on 
laser etching of motor vehicle parts that could be done at the 
manufacturing plant. Avery Dennison provided information on several 
types of etching for window glazing (compound liquid etch, direct laser 
etch and sand blast), labels (pressure sensitive adhesive, heat applied 
(laser), radio frequency identification tags using microtechnology 
chips, cloth and thermal transmitted) that are currently available. In 
1997, 3M presented information on labels that leave the VIN covertly in 
the paint of a vehicle, which is detected by using an ultraviolet 
light. However, the agency received very limited cost information on 
these newest technologies.
    After reviewing the information presented by these companies, NHTSA 
has decided not to propose requiring more permanent methods of parts 
marking at this time. The agency believes that more specific cost 
information is needed in order to consider the possibility of 
initiating a new proposal for performance requirements and test 
procedures. Accordingly, NHTSA will continue to monitor future 
developments of any new permanent parts marking methods and associated 
costs. NHTSA expects that these new technologies will become more 
affordable as they advance, increasing the likelihood of staying within 
the statutory limit.
2. Marking of Air Bags and Window Glazing
    Currently, air bags and window glazing are not classified as major 
parts subject to the parts marking requirement. In the NPRM, the agency 
requested comments on the potential costs and benefits of marking air 
bags and window glazing and whether the agency should seek the 
statutory authority to extend parts marking to these parts.
    A number of commenters supported expanding the list of vehicle 
parts to be marked under the parts marking standard to include air bag 
modules and major pieces of window glazing. The motor vehicle 
manufacturers and their trade associations did not support marking of 
air bags or window glazing. Comments reflected a definite split of 
opinion between the motor vehicle groups and law enforcement.
    Air bag theft is a widespread problem. The National Insurance Crime 
Bureau, an organization who partners with insurers and law enforcement 
agencies to detect, prevent and deter fraud and theft, 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. Air bags have quickly become a primary accessory on the black 
market for stolen vehicle parts. A new air bag, which retails for 
approximately $1,000 from a car dealer, costs $50 to $200 on the black 
market. Vehicle manufacturers provided information on various safety 
risks foreseeable during labeling or inscribing the VIN on the air bags 
on the production line (i.e., an air bag's suddenly deploying, 
endangering unsuspecting workers). However, some manufacturers indicate 
that they are voluntarily cross-referencing the air bag serial number 
with the VIN, and that this information would be available to law 
enforcement.
    Based on the information provided on window glazing, NHTSA is not 
convinced that window glazing theft is a widespread problem. While an 
argument could be made that the marking of more parts would increase 
the difficulty of running a profitable ``chop shop,'' in the past there 
have been concerns that adding glazing to the list of major parts would 
push the cost of each vehicle over the statutory cost limit.
    After reviewing these comments, NHTSA does not believe that there 
is a compelling reason at this time to seek the statutory authority 
necessary to extend the parts marking requirement to air bags and 
window glazing.
3. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
    While the NPRM did not request comments from the public on changing 
the GVWR limit of 6,000 pounds, the Metro Transit Police and the 
International Association of Auto Theft Investigators (IAATI) urged 
NHTSA to expand parts marking of passenger vehicles, MPVs and light 
duty trucks to all vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less. Metro 
Transit Police and IAATI commented that by limiting the GVWR to 6,000 
pounds or less, the most expensive MPV, trucks and vans that are 
targeted by thieves would be excluded from component parts marking.
    The statute authorizing parts marking defines ``passenger motor 
vehicle'' as having an upper GVWR limit of 6,000 pounds (49 U.S.C. 
33101). Therefore, NHTSA does not have the authority to apply this 
standard to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 6,000 pounds.
4. National Stolen Passenger Motor Vehicle Information System
    Although the NPRM did not address the National Stolen Passenger 
Motor Vehicle Information System (NSPMVIS) or its effects on expanding 
parts marking, the agency received comments on this issue. The NSPMVIS 
will contain the vehicle identification numbers of stolen passenger 
motor vehicles and stolen passenger motor vehicle parts. Additionally, 
the system will be able to verify the theft status of salvage and junk 
motor vehicles and covered major parts.
    The Automotive Recyclers Association (ARA) believes that NHTSA's 
proposed rule extending parts marking requirements to all passenger 
cars and MPVs would have a destructive effect on the entire automotive 
recycling industry. This stems from the direct consequences it has on 
the recently proposed DOJ rule to implement the NSPMVIS. ARA states 
that under NHTSA's proposed rule to extend parts marking to virtually 
all passenger cars and MPVs, the entire vehicle population will fall 
under the requirements of the NSPMVIS rule. ARA believes that the 
burden and cost of compliance to legitimate small, professional auto 
recyclers would be enormous.
    Congress mandated NSPMVIS and this extension with the intention 
that each should be carried out concurrently. NHTSA does not have the 
authority to provide exemptions from the NSPMVIS, but will initiate 
discussion with DOJ to explore options to minimize unnecessary burdens.

III. Appendix C to Part 541

    In reviewing the Theft Prevention Standard for this final rule, the 
agency noticed that Appendix C refers to 1983/84 median theft rates. 
Since the agency now uses the 1990/1991 median theft rate to determine 
whether a vehicle is high theft, this Appendix is amended to reflect 
this.

IV. Cost

    In the ``Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE), Expansion of Auto Parts 
Marking Requirement Part 541,'' February 2004, the agency estimates the 
value of thefts that could potentially be reduced by the final rule is 
$38.8 million ($2.756 billion * 0.22 * 0.064).\24\ It is estimated that 
an additional 3.25 million vehicles per year will have to be marked by 
this final rule. The estimated cost is $6.03

[[Page 17966]]

per vehicle. Thus, the total annual cost is $19.6 million (in 2000 
dollars). There is an additional cost of $0.50 or less per replacement 
part. The number of replacement parts sold per year for 3.25 million 
vehicles is not known. These costs are consistent with the cost 
estimates in the NPRM. For a detailed discussion of costs associated 
with this rulemaking, please see the Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) 
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 0.22 is the percentage of vehicle thefts that are 
represented by vehicles not being marked currently, but will be 
marked pursuant to this final rule. 0.064 is the agency's estimate 
of the potential effectiveness of the proposal in terms of the 
reduction in economic loss for unrecovered thefts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only commenter, DaimlerChrysler, commented that NHTSA had 
underestimated the actual costs incurred by manufacturers. 
DaimlerChrysler provided confidential cost estimates indicating that 
Mercedes-Benz USA, which currently does not have to mark any vehicles, 
would incur costs greater than the $24.86 limit per vehicle. The agency 
analyzed these cost estimates, which assumed that fixed costs such as 
purchasing printers would be paid off in the first year of use. If 
these fixed costs were amortized over a 3-year period, the typical 
assumption used by NHTSA in its cost estimates, the costs would be 
below the $24.86 limit. DaimlerChrysler's ongoing cost estimates were 
much lower after the first model year.

V. Effective Date

    The agency proposed September 1, 2005 as the effective date for the 
new rule. AIAM and the Alliance, manufacturer trade associations, both 
commented that this would be sufficient leadtime to implement the new 
requirements, provided that the agency did not adopt a requirement for 
more permanent methods of parts marking.
    IAATI and the Metro Transit Police commented that many 
manufacturers are beginning to introduce new model year vehicles prior 
to September of the previous year. Therefore, they urged NHTSA to 
change the effective date so that parts marking would be required for 
all 2006 model year vehicles.
    IAATI and Metro Transit Police are correct in saying that 
manufacturers have begun introducing new model year vehicles earlier. 
However, NHTSA is concerned that if their suggestion were adopted, 
manufacturers who choose to change their model year designations early 
would be penalized because they would be required to comply with these 
new requirements with less leadtime. NHTSA agrees that it would be 
preferable for all vehicles for a certain model year to have parts 
marking. Therefore, we are allowing manufacturers to comply with the 
new requirements early if they wish to introduce a new model year prior 
to the effective date and wish to have all vehicles marked the same.
    However, given the time that has elapsed since the publication of 
the NPRM, NHTSA is changing the effective date to September 1, 2006. We 
anticipate that many manufacturers will be able to comply prior to that 
date voluntarily. However, for manufacturers that must comply with the 
parts marking requirements for the first time, this two-year plus 
leadtime should allow sufficient time to acquire any necessary 
equipment and otherwise prepare for the effective date.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' The agency has considered the 
impact of this rulemaking action under the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures, and has determined 
that it is not ``significant'' under them. In the FRE, Expansion of 
Auto Parts Marking Requirement Part 541, June 2003, the agency 
estimated the value of thefts that could potentially be reduced by the 
final rule is $38.8 million.
    It is estimated that an additional 3.25 million vehicles per year 
will have to be marked. The estimated cost is $6.03 per vehicle. Thus, 
the total annual cost is $19.6 million (in 2000 dollars). There is an 
additional cost of $0.50 or less per replacement part. The number of 
replacement parts sold per year for 3.25 million vehicles is not known.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as 
amended, requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their 
proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations and 
small governmental jurisdictions. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(RFA) describing the impact of proposed rules on small entities is 
included in the FRE for this final rule. Based on this analysis, NHTSA 
has excluded manufacturers of less than 5,000 vehicles annually for 
sale in the United States from this final rule.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

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

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and have 
determined that it does not have sufficient Federal implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a Federalism summary impact statement. The final rule will not have 
any substantial impact 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. Unfunded Mandates Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
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 of State, local or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation with base year 
of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product 
price deflator for the year 2000 results in $109 million (106.99/
98.11=1.09). The assessment may be included in conjunction with other 
assessments, as it is here.
    This final rule will not result in expenditures by State, local or 
tribal governments or automobile or automobile parts manufacturers of 
more than $109 million annually.

F. Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. A petition 
for reconsideration or other administrative proceeding will not be a 
prerequisite to an action seeking judicial review of this rule. This 
final rule will not preempt the states from adopting laws or 
regulations on the same subject, except that it will preempt a state 
regulation that is in actual conflict with the Federal regulation or 
makes compliance with the Federal regulation impossible or interferes 
with the implementation of the Federal statute.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Department of Transportation has not submitted an information 
collection request to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This rule 
does not impose any new information collection requirements on 
manufacturers.

[[Page 17967]]

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs us 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 us to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    We are unaware of any voluntary consensus standards for theft parts 
marking.

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.

49 CFR Part 543

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


0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR Chapter V 
as follows:

PART 541--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT PREVENTION STANDARD

0
1. The authority citation for Part 541 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 33101, 33102, 33103, 33105; delegation 
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


0
2. Section 541.3 is 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 and listed in appendix A of this part.
    (3) In light duty trucks that NHTSA has finally determined pursuant 
to 49 CFR part 542, to have a majority of major parts interchangeable 
with those of a passenger motor vehicle identified in paragraphs (a)(1) 
and (2) of this section and listed in appendix B of this part.
    (b) Replacement parts for passenger motor vehicles described in 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, 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 5,000 vehicles for sale in the United States 
each year.

0
3. Section 541.5 is 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. * * *
* * * * *

0
4. Appendix A to Part 541 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 541--Light Duty Truck Lines Subject to the 
Requirements of This Standard

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Manufacturer                         Subject lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors............................  Chevrolet S-10 Pickup.
                                            GMC Sonoma Pickup.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
5. Appendix A-I to Part 541 is amended by revising the title to read as 
follows:

Appendix A-I to Part 541--Lines with Antitheft Devices Which are 
Exempted From the Parts-Marking Requirements of This Standard Pursuant 
to 49 CFR Part 543

0
6. Appendix A-II to Part 541 is amended by revising the title to read 
as follows:

Appendix A-II to Part 541--Lines with Antitheft Devices which are 
Exempted in-Part from the Parts-Marking Requirements of this Standard 
Pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543

0
7. Appendix B to Part 541 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 541--Light Duty Truck Lines With Theft Rates below 
the 1990/91 Median Theft Rate, Subject to the Requirements of This 
Standard

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Manufacturer                         Subject lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
None
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
8. Appendix C to Part 541 is amended by revising the title and the 
Application and Methodology sections to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 541--Criteria for Selecting Light Duty Truck Lines 
Likely To Have High Theft Rates

* * * * *

Application

    These criteria apply to lines of passenger motor vehicles 
initially introduced into commerce on or after September 1, 2005.

Methodology

    These criteria will be applied to each line initially introduced 
into commerce on or after September 1, 2005. The likely theft rate 
for such lines will be determined in relation to the national median 
theft rate for 1990 and 1991. If the line is determined to be likely 
to have a theft rate above the national median, the Administrator 
will select such line for coverage under this theft prevention 
standard.
* * * * *

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

0
9. The authority citation for Part 542 continues to read as follows:

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


0
10. The title of Part 542 is revised to read as follows:

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

0
11. Section 542.1 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  542.1  Procedures for selecting new light duty truck lines that 
are likely to have high or low theft rates.

    (a) Scope. This section sets forth the procedures for motor vehicle 
manufacturers and NHTSA to follow in

[[Page 17968]]

the determination of whether any new light duty truck line is likely to 
have a theft rate above or below the 1990/91 median theft rate.
    (b) Application. These procedures apply to each manufacturer that 
plans to introduce a new light duty truck line into commerce in the 
United States on or after September 1, 2005, and to each of those new 
lines.
    (c) Procedures. (1) Each manufacturer shall use the criteria in 
Appendix C of part 541 of this chapter to evaluate each new light duty 
truck line and to conclude whether the new line is likely to have a 
theft rate above or below the 1990/91 median theft rate.
    (2) For each new light duty truck line, the manufacturer shall 
submit its evaluations and conclusions made under paragraph (c) of this 
section, together with the underlying factual information, to NHTSA not 
less than 15 months before the date of introduction. The manufacturer 
may request a meeting with the agency during this period to further 
explain the bases for its evaluations and conclusions.
    (3) Within 90 days after its receipt of the manufacturer's 
submission under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the agency 
independently evaluates the new light duty truck line using the 
criteria in Appendix C of part 541 of this chapter and, on a 
preliminary basis, determines whether the new line should or should not 
be subject to Sec.  541.2 of this chapter. NHTSA informs the 
manufacturer by letter of the agency's evaluations and determinations, 
together with the factual information considered by the agency in 
making them.
    (4) The manufacturer may request the agency to reconsider any of 
its preliminary determinations made under paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section. The manufacturer shall submit its request to the agency within 
30 days of its receipt of the letter under paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section. The request shall 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.
    (5) Each of the agency's preliminary determinations under paragraph 
(c)(3) of this section shall become final 45 days after the agency 
sends the letter specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section unless a 
request for reconsideration has been received in accordance with 
paragraph (c)(4) 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.

0
12. Section 542.2 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  542.2  Procedures for selecting low theft light duty truck lines 
with a majority of major parts interchangeable with those of a 
passenger motor 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 passenger motor vehicle line.
    (b) Application. These procedures apply to:
    (1) Each manufacturer that produces--
    (i) At least one passenger motor vehicle line identified in 49 CFR 
541.3(a)(1) and (2) 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 sub-median 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 
passenger motor 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 passenger motor vehicle line, the manufacturer 
determines whether all the vehicles of those lines with sub-median or 
likely sub-median theft rates 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 independently makes, on a preliminary basis, 
the determinations of those light duty truck lines with sub-median or 
likely sub-median 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.

PART 543--EXEMPTION FROM VEHICLE THEFT PREVENTION STANDARD

0
13. The authority citation for Part 543 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2025; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.


0
14. Section 543.3 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  543.3  Application.

    This part applies to manufacturers of passenger motor vehicles, and 
to any interested person who seeks to have NHTSA terminate an 
exemption.

0
15. Section 543.5(a) is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 17969]]

Sec.  543.5  Petition: General requirements.

    (a) For each model year through model year 1996, a manufacturer may 
petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for up to two additional lines of 
its passenger motor vehicles from the requirements of part 541 of this 
chapter. For each model year after model year 1996, a manufacturer may 
petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one additional line of its 
passenger motor vehicles from the requirements of part 541 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *

    Issued on March 29, 2004.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-7492 Filed 4-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P