70FR28843 Fed Reg May 19 Final Rule

28843

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
§ 195.3

through B.(17) and adding a new item
B.(13) to read as follows:

*

Material incorporated by reference.

*

*

*

(c) * * *

*
49 CFR reference

Source and name of referenced material

*
*
*
*
*
*
B.* * *
(13 API Recommended Practice 1162 ‘‘Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators,’’ First Edition (December 2003). ..........
*

*

*

6. Section 195.440 is revised to read as
follows:

■

§ 195.440

Public awareness.

(a) Each pipeline operator must
develop and implement a written
continuing public education program
that follows the guidance provided in
the American Petroleum Institute’s
(API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162
(IBR, see §195.3).
(b) The operator’s program must
follow the general program
recommendations of API RP 1162 and
assess the unique attributes and
characteristics of the operator’s pipeline
and facilities.
(c) The operator must follow the
general program recommendations,
including baseline and supplemental
requirements of API RP 1162, unless the
operator provides justification in its
program or procedural manual as to
why compliance with all or certain
provisions of the recommended practice
is not practicable and not necessary for
safety.
(d) The operator’s program must
specifically include provisions to
educate the public, appropriate
government organizations, and persons
engaged in excavation related activities
on:
(1) Use of a one-call notification
system prior to excavation and other
damage prevention activities;
(2) Possible hazards associated with
unintended releases from a hazardous
liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline
facility;
(3) Physical indications that such a
release may have occurred;
(4) Steps that should be taken for
public safety in the event of a hazardous
liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline
release; and
(5) Procedures to report such an
event.
(e) The program must include
activities to advise affected
municipalities, school districts,
businesses, and residents of pipeline
facility locations.
(f) The program and the media used
must be as comprehensive as necessary
to reach all areas in which the operator

VerDate jul<14>2003

15:30 May 18, 2005

Jkt 205001

*

*

transports hazardous liquid or carbon
dioxide.
(g) The program must be conducted in
English and in other languages
commonly understood by a significant
number and concentration of the nonEnglish speaking population in the
operator’s area.
(h) Operators in existence on June 20,
2005, must have completed their written
programs no later than June 20, 2006.
Upon request, operators must submit
their completed programs to PHMSA or,
in the case of an intrastate pipeline
facility operator, the appropriate State
agency.
(i) The operator’s program
documentation and evaluation results
must be available for periodic review by
appropriate regulatory agencies.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 5, 2005.
Stacey L. Gerard,
Acting Assistant Administrator/Chief Safety
Officer, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 05–9464 Filed 5–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 541, 543, and 545
[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21233]
RIN 2127–AJ51

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard

*

*
§ 195.440
*

passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less,
unless the Attorney General found that
such a requirement would not
substantially inhibit chop shop
operations and motor vehicle thefts. The
Attorney General did not make such a
finding. Accordingly, in a final rule
published in April 2004, NHTSA
extended parts marking requirements to
these vehicles. This document responds
to petitions for reconsideration of the
April 2004 final rule. Specifically, we
are amending our procedures in order to
begin processing parts marking
exemption petitions prior to the
effective date, and we are phasing-in the
new requirements over a two-year
period.
The amendments to Sections
541.3, 543.3, and 543.5, which were
published at 69 FR 17960, April 6, 2004,
as amended by 69 FR 31412, June 22,
2004, are hereby withdrawn. Except for
the amendment to Section 543.3, this
final rule is effective September 1, 2006.
The amendment to Section 543.3 is
effective July 18, 2005. 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 July 5,
2005.

DATES:

Petitions for reconsideration
should refer to the docket number and
be submitted to: Administrator, Room
5220, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 7th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.

ADDRESSES:

For
technical and policy issues, you may
contact Mary Versailles, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and
Consumer Programs, (Telephone: 202–
366–2057) (Fax: 202–493–2290).
Mary.Versailles@nhtsa.dot.gov.
For legal issues, you may contact
George Feygin, Office of Chief Counsel
(Telephone: 202–366–2992) (Fax: 202–
366–3820).
George.Feygin@nhtsa.dot.gov.

AGENCY:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

SUMMARY: This final rule responds to
petitions for reconsideration of the
agency’s newly expanded parts marking
requirements. The Anti Car Theft Act of
1992 required NHTSA to conduct a
rulemaking to extend the parts marking
requirements to below median theft rate
passenger cars and multipurpose

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions
for reconsideration.

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM

19MYR1

28844

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Table of Contents
I. Summary of Decision
II. Background
III. Final Rule
IV. Petitions for Reconsideration
V. Response to Petitions
A. Clarification of Procedures for Selecting
New Vehicle Lines Subject to the Theft
Prevention Standard Before and After
September 1, 2006
B. Procedures for Filing and Processing
Exemptions Petitions for Vehicle Lines
Not Subject to Parts Marking
Requirements Until September 1, 2006
C. Petition to Exclude Low-volume Vehicle
Lines
D. Petition to Temporarily Exclude Low
Theft Vehicle Lines Equipped With Antitheft Devices From the Requirements of
the Standard
E. Petition to Delay the Effective Date or
Adopt a Phase-in
F. Petition to Permit Parts Marking With
Microdot Technology
G. Petition to Require Parts Marking of
Glazing
H. Miscellaneous Issues
VI. Rulemaking Notices and Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. National Environmental Policy Act
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
E. Unfunded Mandates Act
F. Civil Justice Reform
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Privacy Act
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
VII. Regulatory Text

I. Summary of Decision
After analyzing the petitions for
reconsideration, this final rule makes
the following changes and clarifications
to NHTSA’s expanded parts marking
requirements:
• Manufacturers are not required to
submit part 542 ‘‘likely theft rate
determinations’’ for vehicle lines
introduced prior to the September 1,
2006 effective date, if the manufacturers
choose to voluntarily mark the new
vehicle lines immediately after their
introduction.
• Manufacturers are permitted to
petition the agency to exempt low theft
vehicle lines equipped with antitheft
devices from the parts marking
requirements 60 days after the
publication of this document. Each
manufacturer is eligible for one such
exemption per model year, beginning
with model year 2006.
• Vehicle lines with annual
production of not more than 3,500
vehicles are excluded from parts
marking requirements because the
benefits of marking these vehicle lines
would be of trivial or of no value. This
exclusion applies to all vehicle
manufacturers regardless of overall
production volume.

VerDate jul<14>2003

15:30 May 18, 2005

Jkt 205001

• The agency is adopting a phase-in
of the new parts marking requirements
over a two-year period. Specifically, car
lines representing not less than 50% of
a manufacturer’s production of vehicle
lines that were not subject to parts
marking requirements before September
1, 2006, must be marked effective
September 1, 2006. The remaining
vehicle lines must be marked effective
September 1, 2007. Vehicle lines
already subject to parts marking
requirements are unaffected by this
phase-in.
The agency is denying petitions to
indefinitely exclude all low theft
vehicle lines equipped with anti-theft
devices from the requirements of the
standard. We are also denying petitions
to require glazing marking, and to allow
parts marking using the microdot
technology.
II. Background
49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard,
requires that major parts 1 of certain
motor vehicle lines be indelibly marked
with labels containing the Vehicle
Identification Numbers (VINs).2 This
parts making requirement reduces the
incidence of motor vehicle thefts by
facilitating the tracing and recovery of
parts from stolen vehicles, and
prosecuting thieves, chop shop
operators, and stolen part dealers.
The standard currently applies to high
theft 3 passenger car lines; high theft
multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV)
lines (i.e., passenger vans and sport
utility vehicles) with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds
or less; and high theft light duty truck
(LDT) lines (i.e., pickup trucks and
cargo vans) with a GVWR of 6,000
pounds or less. The standard also
applies to passenger cars and MPVs that
1 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 The labels 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 also be marked with the registered
trademark of the manufacturer of the replacement
part, or some other unique identifier, and the letter
‘‘R’’.
3 ‘‘High theft’’ means a vehicle line that 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). ‘‘Low theft’’ means a vehicle
line that has or is likely to have a sub-median theft
rate.

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

are not high theft, but have major parts
that are interchangeable with major
parts of high theft rate vehicle lines.4
Finally, the standard applies to a small
group of below median theft rate (low
theft) passenger car and MPV lines that
are not otherwise subject to parts
marking requirements.5
Manufacturers are permitted to
petition NHTSA for an exemption from
the parts marking requirements for one
vehicle line per model year. A vehicle
line is eligible for an exemption if it is
fitted with an antitheft device as
standard equipment. 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
The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (the
1992 Theft Act) 7 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 vehicle lines
not subject to the current parts marking
requirements (except LTDs), unless the
Attorney General found instead that
extending the requirement would not
substantially inhibit chop shop
operations and motor vehicle theft.8 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. The Attorney General did not
make such a finding, and instead
concluded that the parts marking
requirement should be expanded.9 In
accordance with the statutory mandate
of the 1992 Theft Act, we published a
final rule in April 2004 that extended
parts marking requirements to the
remaining vehicle lines. That document
is described below.
III. Final Rule
On April 6, 2004, the agency
published in the Federal Register (69
FR 17960) a final rule 10 extending the
parts marking requirements to certain
vehicle lines that were not previously
subject to these requirements: (1) All
low theft passenger car lines; (2) all low
theft MPV lines with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds
4 See

49 U.S.C. 33104(a)(1)(C).
appendix B to 49 CFR part 541.
6 See 49 CFR part 543.
7 See Public Law 102–519. October 25, 1992,
codified in 49 U.S.C. chapter 331. Theft Prevention.
8 See 49 U.S.C. 33103(c).
9 Attorney General’s Initial Review of
Effectiveness is entitled ‘‘The Initial Report.’’ See
Docket No. NHTSA–2002–12231–5.
10 See Docket No. NHTSA–2002–12231–34.
5 See

E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM

19MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
or less; and (3) low theft LDT lines with
a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less that
have major parts that are
interchangeable with a majority of the
covered major parts of passenger cars or
MPVs described above.11 The high theft
vehicle lines that were previously
exempted under 49 CFR part 543 on the
grounds that they are equipped with a
qualifying anti-theft device as standard
equipment were unaffected by the April
2004 final rule. The agency also stated
that it would continue to grant
exemptions for one vehicle line per
model year. The final rule is effective
September 1, 2006.
IV. Petitions for Reconsideration
The agency received five petitions for
reconsideration of the April 2004 final
rule from the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (Alliance),
DaimlerChrysler Corporation (DCX),
DataDot Technology USA, Inc.
(DataDot), Retainagroup, and
Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers (AIAM).12 Further, the
agency received several additional
comments and requests for legal
interpretation pertaining to the new
parts marking requirements. We
addressed some of these requests by
issuing letters of interpretation, and
promised to address other questions
when we issued this document.
The following issues were raised in
the petitions:
• Alliance petitioned the agency to
immediately begin accepting and
processing part 543 parts marking
exemption petitions for vehicles that
would become subject to parts marking
requirements on September 1, 2006.
• Alliance petitioned the agency to
clarify the procedures for selecting
vehicles subject to the parts marking
requirements before and after September
1, 2006.
• DCX and Alliance petitioned the
agency to exclude low-volume vehicle
lines from the requirements of the
standard, regardless of the size of the
vehicle manufacturer.
• Alliance petitioned the agency to
extend the lead-time for one year, or in
alternative, to implement a phase-in.
• DCX petitioned the agency to
temporarily exclude low theft vehicle
lines with standard equipment antitheft
devices from the requirements of the
standard.
11 Low theft rate LDTs which do not have major
parts that are interchangeable with MPVs or
passenger cars are not subject to parts marking
requirements.
12 These petitions are available online at http://
dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm (Docket
No. NHTSA–2002–12231).

VerDate jul<14>2003

15:30 May 18, 2005

Jkt 205001

• DataDot petitioned the agency to
allow a more permanent method of
marking vehicles using microdot
technology.
• Retainagroup petitioned the agency
to require parts marking of glazing.
• AIAM requested that NHTSA
correct two typographical errors in the
regulatory text of the April 2004 final
rule where the agency incorrectly stated
the effective date of the new
requirements.13
The following issues were raised in
letters and e-mails requesting legal
interpretations and comments to the
docket:
• Mr. Michael Finkelstein (on behalf
of Mazda Motor Company) asked
whether the agency would process
petitions to exempt low theft vehicle
lines from parts marking requirements
prior to the September 1, 2006 effective
date; and whether multiple exemption
petitions before September 1, 2006 were
permissible. This is, in part, the same
issue raised by Alliance.
• Mr. James C. Chen of Hogan &
Hartson asked for a clarification of two
issues related to low theft rate LDT lines
that will become subject to parts
marking requirements because they
have a majority of major parts that are
interchangeable with major parts of
passenger cars or MPVs subject to parts
marking requirements.
• Mr. Steven Jonas of Volkswagen
(VW) asked if the expanded parts
marking requirements applied to
passenger cars with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) greater than 6,000
pounds. Mr. Jonas also asked about
‘‘carryover’’ of part 543 exemptions to
subsequent model year vehicle lines.
V. Response to Petitions
A. Clarification of Procedures for
Selecting New Vehicle Lines Subject to
Parts Marking Requirements Before and
After September 1, 2006
49 CFR 542.1 sets forth the
procedures for determining whether a
new vehicle line is likely to have a high
theft rate and is therefore subject to
current parts marking requirements.
First, manufacturers employ criteria
in part 541 appendix C to evaluate new
lines and determine whether the new
line is likely to be high theft. Next, the
manufacturers submit their conclusions
(likely theft rate determination), along
with underlying factual information, to
NHTSA not less than 15 months prior
to introduction of the new vehicle line
in question. The agency then
independently evaluates the new
vehicle line (using the same criteria in
13 A correction notice addressing this petition was
published June 2, 2004 (see 69 FR 34612).

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

28845

part 541 appendix C) and informs the
manufacturer by letter if the agency
agrees with manufacturer’s conclusions
as to the likely theft rate of the new
vehicle line.
Alliance petitioned the agency to
clarify the procedures in § 542.1 as they
apply to vehicle lines introduced before
and after September 1, 2006.
Specifically, Alliance asked whether a
manufacturer must make the likely theft
rate determination for vehicle lines
being introduced several months prior
to the September 1, 2006 effective date
of the extended parts marking
requirements. For example, Alliance
asked if the manufacturers are required
to evaluate the likely theft rate of a new
line being introduced in June of 2006,
knowing that this vehicle line would
become subject to parts marking
requirements regardless of the theft rate
several months later. Alliance asked that
the agency amend the standard so that
likely theft rate determination
submissions are not required for vehicle
lines which will become subject to parts
marking requirements shortly after their
introduction.
We agree that in situations where a
manufacturer introducing a new vehicle
line before September 1, 2006 chooses
to mark that vehicle line immediately,
there is no reason to require the
manufacturer to make the likely theft
rate determination submission to
NHTSA. We believe that the majority of
manufacturers planning to introduce
new vehicle lines shortly before the
September 1, 2006 date would choose to
mark their new vehicle lines
immediately, rather than using their
resources to submit the likely theft rate
determination that, at best, would result
in only temporary relief from the parts
marking requirements. However, a
manufacturer cannot sell unmarked
vehicles before September 1, 2006,
without having submitted the likely
theft rate determination in accordance
with 49 CFR 542.1. If the manufacturer
introducing a new vehicle line before
September 1, 2006 does not wish to
voluntarily mark the subject vehicle line
immediately, the manufacturer must
submit the likely theft rate
determination to NHTSA in accordance
with 49 CFR 542.1.
Because after September 1, 2006, all
passenger cars and MPVs will be subject
to parts marking requirements, the
likely theft rate determination
submissions will be required for only
LDTs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or
less. This is because, with certain
limitations, low theft LDT are not
subject to parts marking requirements.

E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM

19MYR1

28846

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

B. Procedures for Filing and Processing
Part 543 Exemption Petitions for
Existing Vehicle Lines Not Subject to
Parts Marking Requirements Until
September 1, 2006
Currently, 49 CFR 543.1 sets forth the
procedures for filing and processing
petitions to exempt high theft vehicle
lines from the parts marking
requirements. Manufacturers are
allowed to petition NHTSA for one high
theft vehicle line per model year. A
vehicle line is eligible for an exemption
if it is fitted with an antitheft device as
standard equipment. 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.
Alliance and Michael Finkelstein
petitioned the agency to amend the part
543 procedures in order to allow filing
and processing exemptions for existing
vehicle lines, equipped with qualifying
antitheft devices, that will become
subject to parts marking requirements
on September 1, 2006, but are not
subject to current parts marking
requirements because they have been
previously determined to be low theft.
Specifically, petitioners asked the
agency to amend the standard such that
the vehicle manufacturer would be able
to obtain part 543 exemptions for these
vehicle lines prior to September 1, 2006.
Alliance argued that there is no
statutory impediment to allowing
manufacturers to file exemptions for
vehicle lines that would not become
subject to parts marking requirements
until September 1, 2006. Further,
Alliance argued that amending part 543
procedures is consistent with the
purpose of the regulation because it
encourages installation of antitheft
devices on more vehicles.
NHTSA agrees with the petitioner’s
arguments and also notes that requiring
the manufacturers to mark vehicles
which the agency may soon thereafter
decide are eligible for a part 543
exemption would result in an
unnecessary financial burden upon the
manufacturers. The costs associated
with marking a vehicle line that was not
previously subject to parts marking
requirements are not insignificant.
These costs would be especially high if
marking was required for only a short
period of time, because the agency
would later agree to exempt that vehicle
line. For example, there is potential for
situations where a manufacturer would
only have to mark a vehicle line for
several weeks or months after
September 1, 2006, while the agency
reviewed its part 543 petition for

VerDate jul<14>2003

15:30 May 18, 2005

Jkt 205001

exemption. A better solution is to
review part 543 exemption petitions
before the vehicle lines not classified as
high theft, become subject to parts
marking requirements.
Therefore, the agency is amending
part 543 to allow vehicle manufacturers
to file petitions to exempt vehicle lines
(equipped with qualifying antitheft
devices) that will become subject to
parts marking requirements on
September 1, 2006. Affected
manufacturers may begin filing part 543
petitions 60 days after the publication of
this final rule. The agency will begin
processing these petitions immediately
thereafter.
We note that, as discussed above,
each manufacturer is eligible for one
part 543 exemption per model year.14
For vehicle lines not subject to current
requirements, exemptions will be
granted beginning with 2006 model
year. That is, while part 543 petitions
will be accepted and considered by the
agency 60 days after the publication of
this document, the manufacturers of
existing low theft vehicle lines would be
able to obtain only one exemption per
model year, beginning with model year
2006 vehicles.
In his e-mail, Michael Finkelstein
asked whether a manufacturer of
multiple low theft vehicle lines could
apply for more than one part 543
exemption before the September 1, 2006
effective date.15 Specifically, Michael
Finkelstein asked if a manufacturer
could obtain an exemption for a 2005
model year low theft vehicle line. Our
answer is no.
We would not consider it appropriate
to grant exemptions for low theft 2005
model year vehicle lines because these
vehicle lines are not subject to parts
marking requirements; i.e., model year
2005 vehicles will not be in production
on September 1, 2006. Thus, a 2005
model year low theft vehicle line is not
eligible for a part 543 exemption.
Because the new parts marking
requirements become effective
September 1, 2006, we anticipate that at
least some 2006 model year vehicle
lines will still be in production at that
time. Accordingly, we believe it is
appropriate to consider part 543
exemptions for low theft vehicle lines
beginning with 2006 model year.
In sum, the agency will begin
accepting and processing part 543
petitions for exemption of vehicle lines
not subject to current parts marking
requirements 60 days after the
publication of this document. Each
manufacturer of such vehicle lines is

PO 00000

14 See
15 See

§ 543.5(a).
Docket No. NHTSA–2002–12231–41.

Frm 00072

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

eligible for one exemption per model
year, beginning with model year 2006.
We note that vehicle manufacturers
can continue to petition the agency to
exempt high theft vehicle lines subject
to current parts marking requirements.
That is, high theft 2005 model year
vehicle lines are eligible for a part 543
exemption if they are equipped with a
qualifying antitheft device.16 As
previously stated, beginning with 2006
model year, each manufacturer is
eligible for one exemption per model
year, regardless of theft rate.
C. Petition to Exclude Low-volume
Vehicle Lines
The April 2004 final rule excluded
manufacturers that sell fewer than 5,000
vehicles in the U.S. each year from the
requirements of the standard. DCX and
Alliance petitioned the agency to
similarly exclude (in addition to small
volume manufacturers described above)
low-volume vehicle lines whose annual
sales do not exceed 3,500. This
exclusion would apply to low-volume
vehicle lines produced by larger
manufacturers. Examples of these lowvolume vehicle lines include Dodge
Viper, Maybach, Mercedes SLR, and
Ford GT.
Alliance argued that like the smaller
manufacturers already exempted by the
April 2004 final rule, the larger
manufacturers also produce low-volume
specialty vehicle lines that have low
theft rates and high costs of parts
marking because the vehicles are not
manufactured on traditional assembly
lines. Alliance noted that there is
virtually no black market demand or
chop shop interest in stolen parts from
these vehicles. Further, the costs of
marking low-volume vehicle lines are
potentially as expensive as they are for
small vehicle manufacturers exempted
from the requirements.
In support of the Alliance petition,
DCX offered Dodge Viper as an example
of a low-volume vehicle line produced
by a large volume manufacturer. The
Viper has a unique engine, chassis, and
body panels that are not shared with
other vehicles produced by DCX.17
Much like the manufacturers exempt
from parts making, DCX assembles each
Viper individually at a dedicated
facility. DCX argued that implementing
parts marking for a low volume vehicle
line such as the Viper is equally as
16 ‘‘Qualifying’’ means NHTSA determined that
the device is likely to be as effective in reducing
and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts marking requirements.
17 The Viper V10 powertrain is actually also used
in a Dodge Ram SRT 10 pickup tuck, but that
vehicle is also produced in very limited quantities
(http://www.dodge.com/srt–10/index.html).

E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM

19MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
burdensome for DCX as it is for the
exempted manufacturers.
Alliance argued that NHTSA’s theft
data indicate that the theft rate of lowvolume vehicle lines is lower than it is
for other vehicles. DCX stated that
between 1997 and 2002, 8,194 Dodge
Vipers have been produced, and in that
time period, there have been only six
reported thefts.
NHTSA agrees with the petitioners
that the practical burdens of marking
low-volume vehicle lines are significant
for both small manufacturers and large
manufacturers. This is because the fixed
costs associated with implementing
parts marking of low-volume vehicle
lines are unique to those lines, since
they are usually built in dedicated
facilities and do not share assembly
lines with other vehicles produced by
larger manufacturers. As indicated by
the Alliance, the fixed costs include
finding a suitable supplier, investment
in parts marking equipment, and
process implementation for
manufacturers who may have had no
previous parts marking experience.
In addition to these financial burdens,
NHTSA notes that parts marking of lowvolume vehicle lines is unlikely to
reduce the incidence of motor vehicle
thefts, facilitate recovery of stolen
vehicle parts, or facilitate prosecution of
chop shop operators because the
vehicles that are manufactured in small
quantities are generally not stolen for
parts, the primary type of theft this
standard is meant to address. In most
instances, the vehicles in question are
expensive and exotic cars. There is
typically no market for stolen parts for
such vehicles. Accordingly, it is
unlikely that these vehicles would wind
up in chop shops, even if they were
stolen.
We further note that parts marking of
low-volume vehicle lines would have
the potential to affect only a very small
number of vehicle thefts. We estimate
that there are 67 yearly thefts of vehicles
produced in quantities of not more than
3,500. We note that some of the vehicles
in that category are produced by small
volume manufacturers already
exempted from parts marking
requirements. Thus, parts marking of
low-volume vehicle lines would, at
most, have the potential of affecting
fewer than less than 67 motor vehicle
thefts per year.
In sum, NHTSA has decided that the
benefits of marking these vehicles
would be of trivial or of no value.
Accordingly, the agency is exempting
vehicle lines with 3,500 vehicles or less
annually from the requirements.
We note that case law indicates that
in some situations, agencies have an

VerDate jul<14>2003

15:30 May 18, 2005

Jkt 205001

implied authority to create exclusions
based on de minimis circumstances.18
De minimis circumstances refer to
situations where following the plain
meaning of a statute would lead to ‘‘a
gain of trivial or no value.’’ That is, the
agency may go beyond the plain
meaning of the statute in order to avoid
a pointless expenditure of effort by
regulated parties. Based on theft
information available to NHTSA, we
believe that this is one of these
situations. That is, parts marking of lowvolume vehicle lines would produce
theft reduction gains of trivial or no
value.
D. Petition to Temporarily Exclude Low
Theft Vehicle Lines Equipped With
Anti-Theft Devices From the
Requirements of the Standard
DCX petitioned the agency to exclude
low theft vehicle lines equipped with
anti-theft devices (as standard
equipment) from the parts marking
requirements until each such vehicle
line is discontinued or undergoes a
major redesign. Essentially, DCX argues
that low theft vehicle lines that are
equipped with anti-theft devices should
be afforded the same treatment as hightheft vehicle lines that have been
granted exemptions under part 543 19
because NHTSA determined that their
antitheft devices are likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with
the parts marking requirements. DCX
explains that this approach would in
effect phase-in the new parts marking
requirements, allowing the
manufacturers to gradually expand parts
marking to all affected vehicle lines.
DCX argues that this approach
maintains equity in application of parts
marking requirements, and would
discourage manufacturers of low theft
vehicle lines from removing effective
antitheft devices from their vehicles.
DCX explains that it voluntarily
installed antitheft devices in its vehicle
lines, and will now also have to mark
the same vehicle lines. By contrast,
manufacturers of high theft vehicle lines
equipped with antitheft devices have in
the past been able to obtain part 543
exemptions from parts marking
requirements. DCX argues that without
continued exclusion of low theft vehicle
lines equipped with antitheft devices,
manufacturers of low theft vehicles
might determine that the cost of parts
18 Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 at
360, 361 (DC Cir. 1980); see also Public Citizen v.
Young, 831 F.2d 1108 at 1112 (DC Cir. 1987);
Environmental Def. Fund v. Environmental
Protection Agency, 82 F.3d 451, 466 (DC Cir.1996).
19 Please see Section II, which discusses current
exemption procedures.

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

28847

marking and standard anti-theft devices
is too prohibitive. DCX states that the
statutory language is broad enough to
permit the agency to adopt this
approach. We disagree for several
reasons.
DCX argues that the Theft Prevention
statute says nothing that prevents or
prohibits phasing-in the extension and
does not specify any particular method
by which the agency should implement
the extension of parts marking
requirements. By way of analogy and
precedent, DCX also noted that although
the Vehicle Safety Act does not
expressly allow phase-ins, the agency
has previously interpreted that Act to
allow them for safety standards.
While we believe that the relevant
language in the Theft Prevention statute
is broad enough to permit a fleet-wide
phase-in to address practicability issues,
the agency believes that it is otherwise
limited in how it could implement the
new requirements.
First, 49 U.S.C. 33103(b) directed the
agency to extend the parts marking
requirements to vehicle lines that are
not subject to the current parts marking
requirements. While the statute
explicitly excluded low theft LDTs, it
made no similar exclusions for low theft
vehicle lines equipped with antitheft
devices, or any other classes of vehicles.
The agency believes that if Congress had
intended to exclude low theft vehicle
lines equipped with antitheft devices
from the parts marking requirements, it
would have explicitly directed NHTSA
to exempt such vehicles, as it did with
LDTs. Accordingly, we conclude that
Congress intended to extend parts
marking requirements to low theft
vehicle lines whether or not they are
equipped with antitheft devices. This is
contrary to the petitioner’s suggestion
that the agency could indefinitely
exclude low theft vehicle lines
equipped with antitheft devices from
the requirements of the standard.
Second, we note that 49 U.S.C.
33106(b) allows NHTSA to exempt one
vehicle line per year, if the
manufacturer installs an antitheft device
as standard equipment, 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. We believe that because
Congress retained our exemption
authority in adopting the 1992
amendments and narrowly limited the
number of new exemptions, Congress
did not deem antitheft devices to be
functionally equivalent per se to parts
marking, and did not intend the agency
to provide an automatic, across-theboard exclusion to low theft vehicle

E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM

19MYR1

28848

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

lines equipped with antitheft devices
from the parts marking requirements.
We believe that the narrow exemption
provision is instructive because
Congress could have substantially
broadened that provision and directed
NHTSA to begin immediately to exempt
multiple low theft vehicle lines
equipped with antitheft devices.
Further, the agency has not had the
opportunity to examine the
effectiveness of antitheft devices
installed on low theft vehicles. Even if,
as suggested by DCX, the agency would
be provided with a list of every low
theft vehicle line equipped with an
antitheft device, exempting all such
vehicle lines would breach the statutory
limit of one exemption per model year.
We note also that there are practical
limitations to the agency’s ability to
compare and examine antitheft devices
and theft rates of all vehicle lines that
will become subject to parts marking on
September 1, 2006.
While we cannot indefinitely exclude
low theft vehicle lines equipped with
antitheft devices by phasing in the new
requirements, we can adopt a fleet-wide
phase-in that follows a definite, fixed
schedule.
In considering what phase-in to
adopt, the agency balanced the benefits
of parts marking against the practical
burdens associated with implementing
parts marking for manufacturers that
have not previously been required to
mark any of their vehicle lines. In
assessing the benefits, we are mindful of
the presence of antitheft devices on
some of the vehicle lines, although we
would assess their effectiveness only in
the context of a petition for exemption.
As previously discussed, the burdens
include the fixed costs of finding a
suitable supplier, investment in parts
marking equipment, and process
implementation for manufacturers that
have no previous parts marking
experience. Thus, we want to
implement the new requirements in a
time frame that eliminates any basis for
practicability concerns.20 To address
this concern, we have decided to adopt
a short (two-year) fleet-wide phase-in
for the new parts marking requirements.
This approach is described in the next
section.
E. Petition To Delay the Effective Date
or Adopt a Phase-In
DCX and Alliance petitioned the
agency to delay the effective date or
implement a limited phase-in, so that
20 We note that this analysis is limited to issues
arising out of the Theft Prevention statute, and the
agency would take a different approach to the
issues related to practicability in the context of the
Safety Act.

VerDate jul<14>2003

15:30 May 18, 2005

Jkt 205001

only 70% of each manufacturer’s
production would have to be marked by
September 1, 2006, with the remaining
30% marked by September 1, 2007.
While we decline to delay the effective
date, for the reasons discussed in the
previous section, the agency believes
that a phase-in is warranted.
NHTSA estimates that at least five
manufacturers have multiple low theft
vehicle lines affected by parts marking
expansion. Because the second largest
vehicle line for at least one of these
manufacturers exceeds 30% of the total
low theft vehicle production, the 70/100
phase-in suggested by the Alliance and
DCX is inappropriate because at least
one manufacturer would still be
required to mark both low theft vehicle
lines. Instead, we are adopting a 50/50
phase-in.
NHTSA cannot adopt a phase-in
based solely on a percentage of the total
vehicle production because this could
result in manufacturers having to mark
some, but not all vehicles in the same
vehicle line. This, of course, would
frustrate the purpose of parts marking
because law enforcement personnel
would be unable to ascertain whether
the vehicle or vehicle part should have
been marked. Accordingly, we are
adopting a phase-in under which car
lines representing not less than 50% of
a manufacturer’s vehicle lines that were
not subject to parts marking
requirements before September 1, 2006,
must be marked not later than
September 1, 2006. The remaining
vehicle lines must be marked not later
than September 1, 2007. Vehicle lines
already subject to parts marking
requirements are unaffected by this
phase-in.
We note that, in addition to the phasein, we assume that each manufacturer
affected by this final rule will be able to
obtain a part 543 exemption from the
parts marking requirement for the
largest vehicle line equipped with a
qualifying anti-theft device. The agency
believes that together, the phase-in and
the exemption opportunity will
substantially lessen the burdens and
allow the manufacturers sufficient
flexibility in implementing the new
parts marking requirements.
F. Request To Permit Parts Marking
With Microdot Technology
DataDot petitioned the agency to
allow microdot marking of vehicles that
are subject to parts marking
requirements.21 Microdot technology
enables vehicle manufacturers to spray
microdots on different vehicle
components. Each microdot is encoded

PO 00000

21 See

Docket No. NHTSA–2002–42, 44, 46, 47.

Frm 00074

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

with the VIN specific to that vehicle.
Microdots are nearly invisible to the
naked eye, but can be easily be found
and identified with simple
magnification.22 Each vehicle is sprayed
with approximately 10,000 microdots.
Microdot technology does not comply
with current parts marking size and
style requirements because the current
standard mandates that the major
vehicle parts listed in § 541.5 are
marked with the VIN of that vehicle
lettered in block capitals and numerals
not less than three thirty-seconds of an
inch in height. DataDot petitioned the
agency to allow the use of microdot
technology as an alternative to
traditional parts marking.
The agency is unable to consider
DataDot’s request because a change to
parts marking size and style
requirements would be outside the
scope of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM).23 That is, when
the agency proposed to expand parts
marking requirements in June of 2002,
it did not propose to change the parts
marking size and style. Therefore,
NHTSA cannot change these
requirements without first issuing a
notice requesting public comment on
that specific issue.
In addition, the agency would need to
examine certain issues related to
microdot marking. These issues include
acceptance of microdot technology
within the law enforcement community;
the costs associated with magnifying
devices used to read microdot markings;
potential need for additional law
enforcement personnel training; and the
need for objective criteria to regulate
microdot markings.
In sum, the agency is unable to amend
part 541 to allow microdot technology
as an alternative to conventional parts
marking because such change would be
outside the scope of notice. We note that
voluntary use of microdot technology on
vehicles not subject to parts marking
requirements, or in addition to the
required markings, is not prohibited by
our standards.
G. Parts Marking of Glazing
Retainagroup petitioned the agency to
add glazing to the list of major parts in
§ 541.5 that are required to be marked
on vehicles subject to parts marking
requirements.24 Retainagroup argued
that marking the vehicle glazing would
considerably enhance the deterrence
effect of our regulations. Retainagroup
stated that the chief benefit of glazing
22 For more information on DataDot technology
see http://www.mdatatech.com/about.htm.
23 See 67 FR 43075 (June 26, 2002).
24 See Docket No. NHTSA–2002–12231–40.

E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM

19MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
marks would be deterrence of vehicle
theft, rather than prevention of glazing
theft.
As discussed in our April 2004 final
rule, the agency does not have the
statutory authority to require marking of
glazing. Under 49 U.S.C. 33101(6),
major parts of motor vehicle subject to
parts making requirements only include:
(A) The engine; (B) the transmission; (C)
each passenger compartment door; (D)
the hood; (E) the grille; (F) each bumper;
(G) each front fender; (H) the deck lid,
tailgate, hatchback; (I) each rear quarter
panel; (J) trunk floor pan; (K) the frame
or platform; and (L) any other part
comparable in design or function to the
parts listed in A through K.
Glazing is not listed in A through K,
and the agency believes that it is not
comparable in design and function to
parts listed above. As discussed in our
April 14, 2004 letter to Retainagroup,25
glazing is designed and manufactured
from a combination of glass and plastic,
materials that are significantly different
from metal and fiberglass normally used
in manufacturing the ‘‘major parts’’
listed in § 541.5. Glazing also serves a
unique function of providing visibility
necessary for the safe operation of motor
vehicles and helps prevent ejections in
automobile collisions. This function is
unique to glazing and is different from
that of vehicle parts listed in A through
K. Accordingly, before the agency could
require parts marking of glazing,
Congress would have to amend 49 CFR
Chapter 331, the statute governing theft
prevention.
Finally, Retainagroup made several
general arguments in favor of laseretching the major parts that are subject
to marking requirements, instead of
affixing labels. We note that laser
etching is not prohibited by our
standards so long as the VIN number is
lettered in block capitals and numerals
not less than three thirty-seconds of an
inch high. We further note that glazing
marking is not prohibited by our
regulations and vehicle manufacturers
are free to do so.
H. Miscellaneous Issues
1. In a letter dated April 13, 2004, VW
asked whether expanded parts marking
requirements applied to passenger cars
with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) greater than 6,000 pounds. In a
letter dated May 10, 2004, we explained
that the GVWR limitation applied only
to multipurpose passenger vehicles and
light duty trucks, and that the new parts
marking requirements apply to all
25 http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/

files/GF001563a.html.

VerDate jul<14>2003

15:30 May 18, 2005

Jkt 205001

passenger cars regardless of GVWR.26
Subsequently, we published a
correction notice, which, among other
things, clarified the application of parts
marking requirements.27
2. In an e-mail dated February 7,
2005, Mr. Steven Jonas of VW asked
about ‘‘carryover’’ of part 543
exemptions to subsequent model year
vehicle lines. Specifically, Mr. Jonas
asked if a part 543 parts marking
exemption of a 2006 model year line
would carry over to a 2007 model year
line, if the 2007 model year line is
introduced before September 1, 2006.
Our answer is yes.
If the agency grants a part 543
exemption for a 2006 model year line,
that exemption carries over to
subsequent model years regardless of
the model introduction date. We note
that, as discussed in Section V(B) above,
each manufacturer is eligible for one
part 543 parts marking exemption per
model year. Thus, VW would not be
able to obtain another exemption for a
different 2006 model year line.
3. In an e-mail dated October 27,
2004, James Chen of Hogan & Hartson
asked if a low theft LDT line that shares
majority of interchangeable parts with a
vehicle line that is exempted from parts
marking under part 543, would itself be
subject to parts marking requirements.
Our answer is no.
By way of background, The Anti Car
Theft Act of 1992 required NHTSA to
extend 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. However,
the statute did not direct NHTSA to
extend the parts marking requirements
to low theft LDTs. Nevertheless, as
explained, in the April 2004 final rule,
the agency decided to extend parts
marking requirements to low theft LDTs
that share major interchangeable parts
with vehicles that would become
subject to parts marking effective
September 1, 2006. Failure to apply the
parts marking requirements to these low
theft LDTs could hinder law
enforcement actions because it would
have been difficult or even impossible
to draw, with any confidence,
inferences from the absence of marks on
shared major vehicle parts.
The situation described by Mr. Chen
does not raise the same concerns. If the
vehicle line subject to parts marking is
exempted under part 543, there is no
risk of confusion associated with only
some but not all of identical vehicle
26 http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/
files/GF003175.html.
27 See 69 FR 34612 (June 22, 2004).

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

28849

parts being marked. Thus, we believe it
is unnecessary to require that low theft
LDTs that share major interchangeable
parts with exempted vehicle lines, be
marked. In fact, we believe that
requiring LDTs to be marked when their
‘‘counterparts’’ are exempted, could also
hinder effective law enforcement.
We are amending the regulatory text
accordingly.
4. In an e-mail dated October 28,
2004, James Chen of Hogan & Hartson
asked when the manufacturers of LDTs
are required to submit their likely theft
rate determinations based on criteria
specified in appendix C of part 541.
New LDT lines: The manufacturers of
all LDTs, are required to submit their
likely theft rate determinations 15
months prior to introduction of each
new line. This requirement is unaffected
by the April 2004 final rule, since the
manufacturers were previously required
to submit this information 15 months
prior to introduction of new vehicle
lines.28 Accordingly, the manufacturers
of new LDT lines should continue
submitting their likely theft rate
determinations as they did before the
April 2004 final rule.
Existing LDT lines: Under the April
2004 final rule, the manufacturers of
existing low theft LDTs lines are
required to submit their evaluations and
conclusions regarding low theft LDTs
that share major parts with vehicles
subject to parts marking requirements.29
The manufacturers are required to
submit this information 15 months prior
to the date when the vehicles sharing
major parts would become subject to
parts marking requirements. Thus, the
agency expects to receive these
evaluations 15 months prior to
September 1, 2006.30
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 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
28 As explained in Section V, likely theft rate
determination submissions are not required for
passenger car and MPV lines because they will
become subject to parts marking regardless of theft
rate. Further, likely theft rate determinations are not
required if these vehicle lines are voluntarily
marked prior to the September 1, 2006 effective
date.
29 See 49 CFR 542(c)(3).
30 We note that, traditionally, the agency
evaluates late submissions. Because of timing
concerns, we will again evaluate § 542(c)(3)
submissions made after June 1, 2005, so long as the
required submission is made without unreasonable
delay.

E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM

19MYR1

28850

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

regulatory policies and procedures, and
has determined that it is not
‘‘significant.’’
In the Final Regulatory Evaluation
(FRA), we estimated that expanding
parts marking requirements would cost
$19.6 million annually.31 Because we
are implementing a phase-in, and
because we decided to exclude lowvolume vehicle lines from parts marking
requirements, this document reduces
our estimated yearly costs.
The agency estimates that expanded
parts marking requirements would
reduce the costs associated with vehicle
thefts by $38.8 million each year.
Because low-volume vehicle lines are
seldom stolen, this document will not
substantially affect our benefits
estimates.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires agencies
to evaluate the potential effects of their
rules on small businesses, small
organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions. I have considered the
possible effects of this rulemaking
action under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and certify that it would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because NHTSA has previously
excluded small manufacturers (less than
5,000 vehicles annually) from parts
marking requirements.
C. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this document
for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency
has determined that implementation of
this action would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking
in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999)
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 requires agencies to prepare a
31 See

Docket No. 2002–12231–35.

VerDate jul<14>2003

15:30 May 18, 2005

Jkt 205001

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 annually
($120.7 million as adjusted annually for
inflation with base year of 1995). 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 $120.7 million annually.
F. Civil Justice Reform
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), the agency has
considered whether this rulemaking
would have any retroactive effect. 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 would not preempt the states from
adopting laws or regulations on the
same subject, except that it would
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
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 report required to verify
compliance with the phase-in adopted
in this final rule is considered a new
‘‘collection of information’’ as that term
is defined by OMB in 5 CFR part 1320.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, before an agency submits a
proposed collection of information to
OMB for approval, it must first 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
regulation (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

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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;
(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 for public
comments on the following proposed
collection of information for which the
agency is seeking approval from OMB.
Comments must be received on or
before July 18, 2005.
Title: 49 CFR 545—Federal Motor
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard
Phase-In Reporting Requirements.
OMB Control Number: None.
Form Number: None.
Affected Public: Vehicle
manufacturers.
Requested Expiration Date of
Approval: Three years from approval
date.
Abstract: In response to petitions for
reconsideration of an April 6, 2004 final
rule (69 FR 17960), NHTSA is amending
the final rule to phase-in the effective
date of new parts marking requirements
over a two-year period. To ensure
compliance with this phase-in, NHTSA
will be requesting approval from OMB
to require the submission of a single
report within 60 days of August 31,
2007 indicating what vehicle lines were
marked effective September 1, 2006.
NHTSA estimates that not more than
21 vehicle manufacturers will be
affected by these reporting
requirements. None of the affected
manufacturers are small businesses
because manufacturers producing fewer
than 5,000 vehicles per year are
excluded from parts marking
requirements. NHTSA estimates that the
vehicle manufacturers will incur a total
annual reporting and cost burden of 42
hours (2 hours × 21 manufacturers) and
$630 to $840.
For Further Information Contact:
Mary Versailles, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Programs, (Telephone: 202–366–2057)
(Fax: 202–493–2290). 400 7th Street,
SW., Room 5320, Washington, DC
20590.

E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM

19MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
H. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, 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.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Under the National Technology and
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113, 15 U.S.C.
272), ‘‘all Federal agencies and
departments shall use technical
standards that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies, using such technical standards
as a means to carry out policy objectives
or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.’’
We are unaware of any applicable
technical standards related to parts
marking.
K. 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.
L. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19855, April
23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1)
Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental, health, or safety risk that
the agency has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on
children. This rule is not subject to E.O.
13045 because it is not ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under E.O.
12866, and does not concern an
environmental, health or safety risk that
NHTSA has reason to believe may have
a disproportionate effect on children.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 541,
543, and 545
Administrative practice and
procedure, Crime, Labeling, Motor

VerDate jul<14>2003

15:30 May 18, 2005

Jkt 205001

vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The amendments to Sections 541.3,
543.3, and 543.5, which were published
at 69 FR 17960, April 6, 2004, as
amended by 69 FR 31412, June 22, 2004,
are hereby withdrawn.
■ In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA amends 49 CFR chapter V as
follows:
VII. Regulatory Text
PART 541—FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE THEFT PREVENTION
STANDARD
1. The authority citation for part 541
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 33101, 33102,
33103, 33104, 33105; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. Section 541.3 is revised to read as
follows:

■

§ 541.3

Application.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) and (c) of this section, this standard
applies to the following:
(1) Passenger motor vehicle parts
identified in § 541.5(a) that are present
in:
(i) Passenger cars; and
(ii) Multipurpose passenger vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating of
6,000 pounds or less; and
(iii) Light-duty trucks with a gross
vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or
less, that NHTSA has determined to be
high theft in accordance with 49 CFR
542.1; and
(iv) Light duty trucks with a gross
vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or
less, that NHTSA has determined to be
subject to the requirements of this
section in accordance with 49 CFR
542.2.
(2) Replacement passenger motor
vehicle parts identified in § 541.5(a) for
vehicles listed in paragraphs (1)(i) to (iv)
of this section.
(b) Exclusions. This standard does not
apply to the following:
(1) Passenger motor vehicle parts
identified in § 541.5(a) that are present
in vehicles manufactured by a motor
vehicle manufacturer that manufactures
fewer than 5,000 vehicles for sale in the
United States each year.
(2) Passenger motor vehicle parts
identified in § 541.5(a) that are present
in a line with an annual production of
not more than 3,500 vehicles.
(3) Passenger motor vehicle parts
identified in § 541.5(a) that are present
in light-duty trucks with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less,
that NHTSA has determined to be
subject to the requirements of this

PO 00000

Frm 00077

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

28851

section in accordance with 49 CFR
542.2, if the vehicle line with which
these light-duty trucks share majority of
major interchangeable parts is exempt
from parts marking requirements
pursuant to part 543.
(c) For vehicles listed in
subparagraphs (1)(i) to (iv) of this
section that are (1) not subject to the
requirements of this standard until
September 1, 2006, and (2)
manufactured between September 1,
2006 and August 31, 2007; a
manufacturer needs to meet the
requirements of this part only for lines
representing at least 50% of a
manufacturer’s total production of these
vehicles.
PART 543—[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 543
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 33101, 33102,
33103, 33104, 33105; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50.

4. Section 543.3 is amended to read as
follows:

■

§ 543.3

Application.

This part applies to manufacturers of
vehicles subject to the requirements of
part 541 of this chapter, and to any
interested person who seeks to have
NHTSA terminate an exemption.
■ 5. Section 543.5(a) is amended to read
as follows:
§ 543.5

Petition: General requirements.

(a) For each model year, a
manufacturer may petition NHTSA for
an exemption of one car line from the
requirements of part 541 of this chapter.
However, for car lines not subject to the
requirements of part 541 of this chapter
until September 1, 2006, a manufacturer
may not petition NHTSA for an
exemption for model years before model
year 2006.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Part 545 is added to read as follows:
PART 545—FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE THEFT PREVENTION
STANDARD PHASE-IN AND SMALLVOLUME LINE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 33101, 33102,
33103, 33104, 33105; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec.
545.1 Scope
545.2 Purpose
545.3 Applicability
545.4 Response to inquiries
545.5 Definitions
545.6 Reporting requirements for vehicles
listed in § 541(a)(1)

E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM

19MYR1

28852

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 96 / Thursday, May 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

545.7 Reporting requirements for vehicles
listed in § 541(b)(2)
545.8 Records
545.9 Petition to extend period to file report
§ 545.1

Scope.

This part establishes requirements for
manufacturers of motor vehicles to
respond to NHTSA inquiries, to submit
reports, and to maintain records related
to the reports, concerning the number of
vehicles that meet the requirements of
49 CFR part 541, and the number of
vehicles that are excluded from the
requirements of 49 CFR part 541
pursuant to 49 CFR 541(b)(2).
§ 545.2

Purpose.

The purpose of these requirements is
to assist the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration in determining
whether a manufacturer has complied
with the requirements of 49 CFR 541.5.
§ 545.3

Applicability.

This subpart applies to manufacturers
of motor vehicles.
§ 545.4

Response to inquiries.

At any time prior to August 31, 2007,
each manufacturer must, upon request
from the Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, provide information
identifying the vehicles (by make,
model, and vehicle identification
number) that have been certified as
complying with the requirements of 49
CFR part 541. The manufacturers
designation of a vehicle as a certified
vehicle is irrevocable.
At any time prior to August 31, 2007,
each manufacturer must, upon request
from the Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, provide information
identifying the vehicles (by make,
model, and vehicle identification
number) that are excluded from the
requirements of 49 CFR part 541
pursuant to 49 CFR 541(b)(2).
§ 545.5

Definitions.

Production year means the 12-month
period between September 1 of 2006
and August 31, 2007, inclusive.
Small-volume line means a line with
an annual production of not more than
3,500 vehicles.
§ 545.6 Reporting requirements for
vehicles listed in § 541(a)(1).

(a) General reporting requirements.
Within 60 days after the end of the
production year ending August 31,
2007, each manufacturer shall submit a
report to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration concerning its
compliance with 49 CFR part 541 for
vehicles listed in § 541(a)(1) that were
manufactured between September 1,
2006 and August 31, 2007. Each report
must—

VerDate jul<14>2003

15:30 May 18, 2005

Jkt 205001

(1) Identify the manufacturer;
(2) State the full name, title, and
address of the official responsible for
preparing the report;
(3) Identify the production year being
reported on;
(4) Contain a statement regarding
whether or not the manufacturer
complied with the requirements of 49
CFR part 541 for the period covered by
the report, and the basis for that
statement;
(5) Provide the information specified
in paragraph (b) of this section;
(6) Be written in the English language;
and
(7) Be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Room, 400 7th Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
(b) Report content—(1) Basis for
Statement of Compliance. Each
manufacturer shall provide the number
of motor vehicles listed in § 541(a)(1)
that were manufactured between
September 1, 2006 and August 31, 2007
(excluding those motor vehicles that
were subject to the requirements of 49
CFR part 541 before September 1, 2006).
(2) Production. Each manufacturer
shall provide (1) the number of motor
vehicles manufactured between
September 1, 2006 and August 31, 2007
(excluding those motor vehicles that
were subject to the requirements of 49
CFR part 541 before September 1, 2006),
that meet the requirements of 49 CFR
541.5; and (2) the number of motor
vehicles manufactured between
September 1, 2006 and August 31, 2007
(excluding those motor vehicles that
were subject to the requirements of 49
CFR part 541 before September 1, 2006),
that are exempt from 49 CFR part 541
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543.
(3) Statement regarding compliance.
Each manufacturer must provide a
statement regarding whether or not the
manufacturer complied with 49 CFR
541.5 requirements as applicable to the
period covered by the report, and the
basis for that statement.
§ 545.7 Reporting requirements for
vehicles listed in § 541(b)(2).

(a) General reporting requirements.
Within 60 days after the end of the
production year ending August 31,
2007, each manufacturer must submit a
report to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration concerning smallvolume lines that were manufactured
between September 1, 2006 and August
31, 2007. Each report must—
(1) Identify the manufacturer;
(2) State the full name, title, and
address of the official responsible for
preparing the report;
(3) Identify the production year being
reported on;

PO 00000

Frm 00078

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

(4) Provide the information specified
in paragraph (b) of this section;
(5) Be written in the English language;
and
(6) Be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Room, 400 7th Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
(b) Report content. Within 60 days
after the end of the production year
ending August 31, 2007, each
manufacturer shall provide: (1) The
name of each small-volume line the
manufacturer produces; (2) the number
of motor vehicles in each small-volume
line the manufacturer produced.
§ 545.8

Records.

Each manufacturer shall maintain
records of the Vehicle Identification
Number for each vehicle for which
information is reported under
§ 545.6(b)(2) and § 545.7(b)(2) until
December 31, 2008.
§ 545.9
report.

Petition to extend period to file

A manufacturer may petition for
extension of time to submit a report
under this part. A petition will be
granted only if the petitioner shows
good cause for the extension and if the
extension is consistent with the public
interest. The petition must be received
not later than 15 days before expiration
of the time stated in § 545.5(a). The
filing of a petition does not
automatically extend the time for filing
a report. The petition must be submitted
to: Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Issued on May 9, 2005.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–9708 Filed 5–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No.; 040830250–5109–04; I.D.
081304C]
RIN 0648–AS27

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
Fisheries Off West Coast States and in
the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery; Biennial
Specifications and Management
Measures; Correction
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

AGENCY:

E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM

19MYR1