[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 8, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55386-55387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17597]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 543

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0081]


Exemption From Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Clarification 
of Data Submission Requirement

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

ACTION: Notification clarifying content requirement for petitions for 
exemption from vehicle theft prevention standard.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is issuing this notification to aid manufacturers in 
understanding what type of information must be submitted when 
petitioning for an exemption from NHTSA's Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard under agency rules.

DATES: September 8, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For programmatic issues: Carlita 
Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer 
Standards. Ms. Ballard's phone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number 
is (202) 493-2990. For legal issues: Hannah Fish, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, (202) 366-2992. National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This informational notification is to 
clarify the type of information that can serve as a valid basis for 
granting a request for exemption from the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard (Theft Prevention Standard). NHTSA is providing 
this clarification because it has received a few petitions in which the 
petitioners have sought to support their request for exemption with 
data comparing the theft rate of a particular vehicle line to the 
industry median or average vehicle theft rate for a specific model year 
(MY)/calendar year (CY), or with the 1990/91 median theft rate that is 
used to determine whether any new light duty truck line is likely to be 
a high theft line. As discussed below, NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 
543.6(a)(5) require petitioners to submit information to support their 
belief that a line of passenger motor vehicles equipped with the 
antitheft device is likely to have a theft rate equal to or less than 
that of passenger motor vehicles of the same, or a similar, line which 
have parts marked in compliance with Part 541. This notification does 
not impose any new requirements for manufacturers seeking exemptions 
from the parts-marking requirement or otherwise change Part 541.
    Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331, the Secretary of Transportation (and 
NHTSA by delegation) is required to promulgate a theft prevention 
standard to provide for the identification of certain motor vehicles 
and their major replacement parts to impede motor vehicle theft. NHTSA 
promulgated regulations at Part 541 (Theft Prevention Standard) to 
require parts-marking for specified passenger motor vehicles and light 
trucks. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.

[[Page 55387]]

33106, manufacturers that are subject to the parts-marking requirements 
may petition the Secretary of Transportation for an exemption for a 
line of passenger motor vehicles equipped as standard equipment with an 
antitheft device that the Secretary decides is likely to be as 
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance 
with the parts-marking requirements. That chapter defines a ``line'' as 
``a name that a manufacturer of motor vehicles applies to a group of 
motor vehicle models of the same make that have the same body or 
chassis, or otherwise are similar in construction or design.'' \1\ In 
accordance with this statute, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR part 543, which 
establishes the process through which manufacturers may seek an 
exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard for lines of passenger 
motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 33101(5). NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 541.4 
further elaborate that ``A `line' may, for example, include 2-door, 
4-door, station wagon, and hatchback vehicles of the same make.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, of 49 
CFR specifies the showing that manufacturers must make in a request for 
exemption from the parts-marking requirement. In relevant part, 49 CFR 
543.6(a)(5) requires the petitioner to submit:

    The reasons for [its] belief that the agency should determine 
that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective as compliance 
with the parts-marking requirements of part 541 in reducing and 
deterring motor vehicle theft, including any statistical data that 
are available to the petitioner and form a basis for the 
petitioner's belief that a line of passenger motor vehicles equipped 
with the antitheft device is likely to have a theft rate equal to or 
less than that of passenger motor vehicles of the same, or a 
similar, line which have parts marked in compliance with part 541. 
(Emphasis added.)

    As discussed above, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.8 
(b), the agency grants a petition for exemption from the parts-marking 
requirements of Part 541, either in whole or in part, if it determines 
that, based upon supporting evidence, the standard equipment antitheft 
device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor 
vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 
541.
    In order to determine whether an exemption is warranted under Part 
543, NHTSA must determine the relative effectiveness of a particular 
antitheft device versus parts marking in reducing vehicle theft. This 
is because, to make a valid comparison, petitioners must carefully 
choose two sets of vehicles that are as nearly similar as possible so 
that NHTSA can be reasonably certain that any differences or 
similarities in the theft rates of the two sets of vehicles can be 
attributed to the presence of an antitheft device or parts marking and 
not to extraneous, confounding variables.
    NHTSA publishes data, by notice and on the agency's website, on 
vehicle theft rates based on information provided by the National Crime 
Information Center (NCIC) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.\2\ In 
the notices, NHTSA publishes theft data available for model year 
vehicles stolen in a calendar year. The data include the average theft 
rate for MY vehicles in that CY, how that data compare to data from the 
prior CY, and how that data compare to the established median theft 
rate for MYs 1990/91,\3\ which is used to designate high-theft vehicle 
lines (now only for light trucks).\4\ Those notices also include theft 
rate data for individual vehicle lines. These data show that theft 
rates for different vehicle lines vary widely within a CY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Vehicle 
Theft Prevention, Vehicle Theft Rates Search, https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-theft-prevention/vehicle-theft-rates-search.
    \3\ See, e.g., 82 FR 28246 (June 21, 2017).
    \4\ 49 CFR 542.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past, NHTSA had considered relative theft rate data of a 
vehicle that is the subject of an exemption petition and one or more 
models in the same segment, of a similar size, and equipped with 
similar equipment as an appropriate comparative basis. NHTSA's Vehicle 
Theft Rates Search tool is one resource that petitioners may use to 
reference relative theft rate data for a similar line. In addition, 
petitioners have referenced data from outside sources that has provided 
comparative theft rate data for the specific line for which the 
petitioner is requesting an exemption.\5\ NHTSA reaffirms today that 
such relative theft rate data may be persuasive supporting evidence to 
enable the agency to make a determination that the standard equipment 
antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring 
motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements 
of Part 541. Again, to make a valid comparison, petitioners must 
carefully choose two sets of vehicles that are as nearly similar as 
possible so that NHTSA can be reasonably certain that any differences 
or similarities in the theft rates of the two sets of vehicles can be 
attributed to the presence of an antitheft device or parts marking and 
not to extraneous, confounding variables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This includes data from the Insurance Institute for Highway 
Safety's Highway Loss Data Institute or other comparative internal 
confidential or non-confidential data the manufacturer may have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, a petitioner citing the industry average theft rate 
for a CY for purposes of determining whether an antitheft device is 
likely to be as effective as a same or similar vehicle line that has 
parts marked in compliance with Part 541 is not particularly meaningful 
for the agency's comparison considering the range of individual vehicle 
line theft rates; citing the 1990/1991 median theft rate is even less 
meaningful considering that median theft rate was based on the range of 
vehicle lines available almost 30 years ago. For this reason, NHTSA 
will not consider comparisons of the theft rate of the subject vehicle 
in a petition to the industry-wide median or average theft rate for a 
specific MY/CY, or to the 1990/91 median theft rate as persuasive 
evidence when evaluating a request for exemption under Part 543.
    NHTSA believes this information will be helpful for manufacturers 
contemplating how to petition for exemption from the parts-marking 
requirements of Part 541.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2020-17597 Filed 9-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P