Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 69688-69689 [05-22819]

Download as PDF 69688 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations Executive Order 13132, Federalism In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM finds that the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national governments and the States, or the distribution of power and the responsibilities among the various levels of government. This final rule does not preempt State law. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform This final rule is a purely administrative regulatory action having no effects upon the public and will not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with the Executive Order 13175, the BLM finds that the rule does not include policies that have tribal implications. This final rule is a purely an administrative action having no effects upon the public or the environment, imposing no costs, and merely updating the BLM, Arizona State Office address included in the Code of Federal Regulations. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use In accordance with the Executive Order 13211, the BLM has determined that the final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the energy supply, distribution or use, including a shortfall in supply or price increase. This final rule is a purely administrative action and has no implications under Executive Order 13211. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. Author The principal author of this rule is Diane O. Williams, Regulatory Affairs Group (WO 630). List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 1820 Administrative practice and procedure; Archives and records; Public lands. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:07 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 Dated: October 28, 2005. Chad Calvert, Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Bureau of Land Management amends 43 CFR part 1820 as follows: I PART 1820—APPLICATION PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 1820 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 43 U.S.C. 2, 1201, 1733, and 1740. Subpart 1821—General Information 2. Amend section 1821.10 by amending paragraph (a) by revising the location and address of the Bureau of Land Management State Office in Arizona to read as follows: I § 1821.10 Where are BLM offices located? (a) * * * STATE OFFICES AND AREAS OF JURISDICTION * * * * * Arizona State Office, One North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004–2203—Arizona. * * * * * [FR Doc. 05–22780 Filed 11–16–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–84–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 541, 543, and 545 [Docket No. NHTSA–05–21233; Notice 2] Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This document denies a petition 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 of that Standard to all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less regardless of theft rate, unless the Attorney General found that such a requirement would not substantially PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 inhibit chop shop operations and motor vehicle thefts. The initial final rule extending the parts marking requirement was published in April of 2004. In May 2005, NHTSA responded to petitions for reconsideration of the April 2004 final rule and established a phase in schedule for the new requirements. We also decided to exclude vehicle lines with annual production of not more than 3,500 vehicles from the parts marking requirements because the benefits of marking these vehicle lines would be trivial or of no value. The agency received a petition for reconsideration of the May 2005 final rule from International Association of Auto Theft Investigators. The petition asked the agency to reconsider the phase-in and small volume exclusion as it applied to large volume vehicle manufacturers. This document denies that petition because it did not provide sufficient information in support of their request to reconsider the May 2005 final rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy issues, you may call Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, (Telephone: 202– 366–0846) (Fax: 202–493–2290). For legal issues, you may call George Feygin, Office of Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202–366–2992) (Fax: 202– 366–3820). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 6, 2004, the agency published a final rule extending the anti-theft parts marking requirements (Part 541) to (1) all below median theft rate passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less, and (2) all below median theft rate light duty trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less and major parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of passenger cars or MPVs subject to the parts marking requirements.1 (69 FR 17960) The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 required this final rule unless the Attorney General made a finding that the extension would not substantially inhibit chop shop operations and motor vehicle thefts. The final rule is effective September 1, 2006. On May 19, 2005, the agency published a final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration of the 2004 1 Above median theft rate LDTs are still subject to the parts marking requirements. Below median theft rate LDTs which do not have major parts that are interchangeable are not subject to the requirements. E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM 17NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations final rule.2 Among other things, the May 2005 final rule excluded vehicle lines with annual production of not more than 3,500 vehicles from parts marking requirements because the benefits of marking these vehicle lines would be trivial or of no value. This exclusion applies to all vehicle manufacturers regardless of overall production volume. We also adopted a phase-in of the new parts marking requirements over a twoyear 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. 2 See 70 FR 28843, Docket No. NHTSA–2005– 21233. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:07 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 The agency received a petition for reconsideration of the May 2005 final rule, from the International Association of Auto Theft Investigators. The petition asked the agency to reconsider the phase-in and the small volume exemption. With regard to the phase-in, the petition provided no argument on why the agency should reconsider the phasein. In deciding to adopt the phase-in, the agency balanced the benefits of parts marking against the practical burdens associated with implementing the expansion of parts marking. The agency decided to adopt the phase-in because the expanded time frame eliminates any argument about the practicability of expanding parts marking. The petitioner stated their objection to the phase-in, but provided no information indicating that the expansion would be practicable without it. With regard to the small volume exemption, the petitioner argues that this is a ‘‘Small Business Exemption,’’ PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69689 and that allowing large companies to claim such an exemption was not the intent of Congress. The agency’s decision to exclude small volume vehicle lines was not based on the size of the manufacturer. Instead, the agency’s decision was based on an analysis that the benefits of marking small volume vehicle lines would be de minimis. The petitioner provided no explanation as to why this analysis was incorrect. For these reasons, the agency is denying the International Association of Auto Theft Investigators’ petition. In accordance with 49 CFR part 553, this completes the agency review of the petition for reconsideration. Issued on: November 10, 2005. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 05–22819 Filed 11–16–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM 17NOR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 221 (Thursday, November 17, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69688-69689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22819]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 541, 543, and 545

[Docket No. NHTSA-05-21233; Notice 2]


Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition 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 of that Standard to all passenger cars and 
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 
6,000 pounds or less regardless of theft rate, unless the Attorney 
General found that such a requirement would not substantially inhibit 
chop shop operations and motor vehicle thefts. The initial final rule 
extending the parts marking requirement was published in April of 2004. 
In May 2005, NHTSA responded to petitions for reconsideration of the 
April 2004 final rule and established a phase in schedule for the new 
requirements. We also decided to exclude vehicle lines with annual 
production of not more than 3,500 vehicles from the parts marking 
requirements because the benefits of marking these vehicle lines would 
be trivial or of no value.
    The agency received a petition for reconsideration of the May 2005 
final rule from International Association of Auto Theft Investigators. 
The petition asked the agency to reconsider the phase-in and small 
volume exclusion as it applied to large volume vehicle manufacturers. 
This document denies that petition because it did not provide 
sufficient information in support of their request to reconsider the 
May 2005 final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy issues, you 
may call Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy 
and Consumer Programs, (Telephone: 202-366-0846) (Fax: 202-493-2290).
    For legal issues, you may call George Feygin, Office of Chief 
Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 6, 2004, the agency published a 
final rule extending the anti-theft parts marking requirements (Part 
541) to (1) all below median theft rate passenger cars and multipurpose 
passenger vehicles (MPVs) that have a gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less, and (2) all below median theft rate 
light duty trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less and major parts 
that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of 
passenger cars or MPVs subject to the parts marking requirements.\1\ 
(69 FR 17960) The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 required this final rule 
unless the Attorney General made a finding that the extension would not 
substantially inhibit chop shop operations and motor vehicle thefts. 
The final rule is effective September 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Above median theft rate LDTs are still subject to the parts 
marking requirements. Below median theft rate LDTs which do not have 
major parts that are interchangeable are not subject to the 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 19, 2005, the agency published a final rule responding to 
petitions for reconsideration of the 2004

[[Page 69689]]

final rule.\2\ Among other things, the May 2005 final rule excluded 
vehicle lines with annual production of not more than 3,500 vehicles 
from parts marking requirements because the benefits of marking these 
vehicle lines would be trivial or of no value. This exclusion applies 
to all vehicle manufacturers regardless of overall production volume. 
We also adopted 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 70 FR 28843, Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency received a petition for reconsideration of the May 2005 
final rule, from the International Association of Auto Theft 
Investigators. The petition asked the agency to reconsider the phase-in 
and the small volume exemption.
    With regard to the phase-in, the petition provided no argument on 
why the agency should reconsider the phase-in. In deciding to adopt the 
phase-in, the agency balanced the benefits of parts marking against the 
practical burdens associated with implementing the expansion of parts 
marking. The agency decided to adopt the phase-in because the expanded 
time frame eliminates any argument about the practicability of 
expanding parts marking. The petitioner stated their objection to the 
phase-in, but provided no information indicating that the expansion 
would be practicable without it.
    With regard to the small volume exemption, the petitioner argues 
that this is a ``Small Business Exemption,'' and that allowing large 
companies to claim such an exemption was not the intent of Congress. 
The agency's decision to exclude small volume vehicle lines was not 
based on the size of the manufacturer. Instead, the agency's decision 
was based on an analysis that the benefits of marking small volume 
vehicle lines would be de minimis. The petitioner provided no 
explanation as to why this analysis was incorrect.
    For these reasons, the agency is denying the International 
Association of Auto Theft Investigators' petition. In accordance with 
49 CFR part 553, this completes the agency review of the petition for 
reconsideration.

    Issued on: November 10, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-22819 Filed 11-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.