[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47427-47429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-22594]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. 93-50; Notice 4]
Denial of Petition for Reconsideration, Nassau Technologies;
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Response of Petition for Reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition from Nassau Technologies, Inc.,
for reconsideration of NHTSA's decision not to include motor vehicle
glazing as a major vehicle component, which would be subject to the
parts-marking requirement of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle
(Theft Prevention Standard). NHTSA is denying the petition because it
believes that it needs cost and effectiveness information beyond that
which it received in connection with this petition in order to make an
informed decision about whether motor vehicle glazing should be added
to the list of major components for which parts-marking is required by
the theft prevention standard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara Gray, Office of Market
Incentives, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms.
Gray's telephone number is (202) 366-1740. Her fax number is (202) 493-
2739.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 7, 1993, NHTSA published in the Federal Register an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (58 FR 36376), seeking comments
on possible definitions of multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPVs) and
light-duty truck (LDTs) to be used in the Federal motor vehicle theft
prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) when the agency amended it to add
those vehicles categories pursuant to the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992,
P.L. 102-519 (October 25, 1992). The ANPRM also sought comments on
which MPV and LDT parts should be considered major
[[Page 47428]]
component parts, and therefore, subject to the parts-marking
requirements.
Several commenters on the ANPRM, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates), Prospective Technologies (Prospective), and State
Farm Mutual Insurance Company (State Farm), suggested that motor
vehicle glazing be treated as major component parts for all high-theft
vehicle lines. Prospective cited the relative ease with which glazing
could be marked, the low cost of marking, and provided examples of
lower-theft rates for some motor vehicles with glazing that had been
voluntarily marked with the vehicle identification number.
On July 8, 1994, the agency published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (59 FR 35082), which
requested additional comments on proposed definitions of MPVs and LDTs
and also solicited comments on the components of these vehicles that
should be subject to parts marking. In the NPRM, the agency
specifically requested additional information and comments on whether
glazing should also be added to the passenger vehicle components
subject to parts making, and proposed the following glazing components
to be marked, if present on the vehicle: windshield, right/left front-
side window, right/left rear-side window, rear window, and right/left
T-top inserts. In addition, the NPRM sought comments on the exclusion
of particular glazing pieces, and whether glazing should be exempted
from the requirements of 49 CFR Sec. 541.5(d)(1)(ii)(B) that the
marking be placed on a portion of the part not likely to be damaged in
a collision. Finally, the notice requested comments on how the target
areas for glazing parts could be specified so that the markings
required by the antitheft standard and the markings required by Federal
motor vehicle safety standard 205, Glazing Materials, would not be
placed in the same area.
Five of the fifteen commenters, International Association of Auto
Theft Investigators (IAATI), Advocates, State Farm, Prospective, and
Automark Corporation supported a requirement for marking motor vehicle
glazing. The remaining commenters--automobile manufacturers and their
associations, and the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)--
disagreed with including glazing as a component to be subject to the
parts-marking requirements. Among the reasons given for disagreement
were excessive cost, the fact that none of the methods for marking
glazing had been implemented on a manufacturer's assembly line,
occupational and environmental hazards presented by some of the
chemicals and other materials used in marking glass, the questionable
effectiveness in deterring theft, and the absence of legal authority.
Nassau did not comment on the NPRM, and no other commenter mentioned
laser technology as means of marking glazing material.
After considering all of the comments, NHTSA issued a final rule
that does not include glazing as one of the major vehicle components
subject to the parts-marking requirements of Part 541 (59 FR 64164
(December 13, 1994)).
On January 12, 1995, the agency received a petition for
reconsideration of the final rule from Nassau Technologies, Inc., of
Stafford, Texas (Nassau). A manufacturer of a patented laser etching
system known as LaserGuard. Nassau stated that it had not commented on
the ANPRM or NPRM on requiring glazing to be marked under the theft
prevention standard because it had not been aware of the agency's
publication of the notices until after the comment period had closed.
Its basis for seeking reconsideration of the final rule was that if
NHTSA and the vehicle manufacturers had information about Nassau's
LaserGuard system before the final rule, the agency would have included
glazing as a component subject to the parts-marking requirements of
Part 541.
Nassau specifically addressed four major issues raised by the
commenters opposed to marking of vehicle glazing: cost, adverse
environmental and occupational health impacts, effectiveness as a theft
deterrent, and problems with etching replacement glazing.
Nassau contends that the cost estimates provided to NHTSA by the
commenters opposed to marking of glazing were based on antiquated and
costly glass-etching technologies, i.e., sandblasting and chemical
etching processes. Nassau agreed that these methods are cumbersome and
labor intensive.
However, it asserted that its LaserGuard etching process is less
costly than these processes because its system is automated, requires
no stencil production or no etching materials and can be adapted to
robotics for assembly line use. Nassau believes that the per-vehicle
cost to mark glass with the LaserGuard system would be far less than
$5.00. The current per-vehicle cost using LaserGuard is $5. Nassau
believes that the cost would be substantially reduced if the system
were used on a large scale by the automobile manufacturers. According
to Nassau, the low per-vehicle cost of LaserGuard would keep the total
cost of marking all required components of a vehicle below the
statutory cumulative limit of $20.86 (in 1993 dollars).
Nassau asserted that the environmental and employee health concerns
about chemical etching and sandblasting raised by several
manufacturers, including proper ventilation, storage and disposal of
hazardous or caustic agents, and the need for protective apparel, would
all be eliminated if the LaserGuard system were used. It stated that
the LaserGuard system operates a Co2 laser.
Nassau asserted that in its experience, glass etching has been
successful as a theft deterrent. Its parent company has provided a
glass etching product with a consumer warranty to a large automobile
distributor for 10 years. The warranty for this product states that if
the consumer's vehicle is stolen and not recovered the company will pay
the owner one thousand dollars. Nassau submitted an exhibit showing
that over a two-year period, 238,363 vehicles had their glazing etched
using the product, and only 129 warranty claims were processed.
Nassau stated that insurance companies and lawmakers who recognize
glass etching as a theft deterrent generally support the view that
etching the glass protects the vehicle as a whole from theft. Nassau
also asserted that because it is difficult for thieves to make a
vehicle unidentifiable if two or more windows must be removed and
replaced, some insurance companies give a discount on the premium for
vehicles that have some but not all glazing etched. According to
Nassau, this would ameliorate the problems concerning the etching of
replacement glass that were raised by some commenters. (It cited as an
example the Texas Insurance Automobile Rules and Rating Manual which
defines a qualifying antitheft system as a ``system under which the
motor vehicle identification number (VIN) is permanently marked on at
least two windows of the motor vehicle other than the small vent
windows.'') If having as few as two windows glazed is sufficient to
deter theft of the vehicle, there would not be a frequent need to
replace damaged glass with etched glass in order to gain the deterrent
effect. Nassau added that for those consumers who wished to have
replacement glass etched, manufacturers could provide a chemical
etching kit directly to the consumer or to the body shop upon request
by the vehicle owner.
[[Page 47429]]
In conclusion, Nassau stated that the LaserGuard system, engineered
and developed in 1990, has been successfully tested and operated in
high-volume environments in multiple locations. It believes that the
agency's decision not to include glazing as a component subject to the
parts-marking requirement was heavily influenced by the concerns
expressed by the manufacturers, which were based on different etching
technologies.
Discussion
The agency's principal reason for deciding in the final rule not to
adopt the proposal to include glazing as a major vehicle component
subject to parts-marking was its belief that ``specifying glazing as
major parts, may make the costs of parts marking for some manufacturers
exceed the $20.86 [1993 dollars] limited specified in [49 U.S.C.]
section 33105(a),'' combined with the assertions from commenters that
windows are rarely stolen as replacement parts, and that there is no
evidence that vehicles are stolen for their glazing materials. 59 FR
64166 (December 13, 1994).
Nassau asserted in its petition that the per-vehicle cost of glass
etching using its LaserGuard system is currently about $5. It also
stated its belief that the per-vehicle cost would be substantially
lower if the system were to be implemented on the assembly lines of the
major vehicle manufacturers. It does not state whether its estimated
per-vehicle-cost for large-scale use of LaserGuard takes into account
the capital investment that manufacturers would be required to make to
tool their assembly lines to accommodate the LaserGuard technology. The
agency notes that in its petition Nassau states that the system can be
adapted to robotics for use on the assembly line. The extent of the
adaptations that would be needed and their possible cost is not known.
Even if the agency were to accept the assertion that the per-
vehicle cost of laser etching of vehicle glazing would be low enough to
keep the per-vehicle cost of parts-marking below the statutory limit,
it would be required to consider other factors in deciding whether to
mandate etching of vehicle glass. Some commenters on the NPRM raised
serious questions about whether etched glazing would be an effective
deterrent to vehicle theft. Nassau has countered these assertions with
one example of a situation in which a group of vehicles with marked
glazing had a very low incidence of theft.
The agency does not believe it has a basis for concluding that it
can give any more weight to Nassau's example than to the NPRM comments
to the contrary. While it is clear that the vehicles in Nassau's
example experienced a low-theft rate, there is no information in
Nassau's submission that would enable the agency to make a judgment
about whether and to what extent the low-theft rate could be attributed
to the fact that the glazing on the vehicles was marked. Further, the
entire MY 1993 Nissan 300ZX line had all its windows etched and the
theft rate for that line continued to increase from the previous model
year.
The agency heretofore has limited designation of parts required to
be marked under Part 541 to those parts explicitly listed by Congress
and parts that were clearly within the scope of the mandate of the Anti
Car Theft Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-519) to add multipurpose passenger
vehicles and light-duty trucks to the vehicle categories covered by
Part 541. See 59 FR 64166 (December 13, 1994). Because the data on the
effectiveness of parts marking in general and marking of glazing in
particular is uncertain, and the addition of a requirement to mark
glazing would result in additional costs to vehicle and replacement
parts manufacturers, the agency has decided that the best course at
this time is to limit the scope of the parts-marking requirement to the
parts listed in the final rule published December 13, 1994. (59 FR
64166)
For the foregoing reasons, the agency is denying the petition for
reconsideration filed by Nassau Technologies, Inc.
Issued on: September 6, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-22594 Filed 9-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
