Interpretation ID: aiam4275
Certification Government Relations Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation 3251 East Imperial Highway Brea
CA 92621;
Dear Mr. Link: This responds to your letter to Mr. Brian McLaughlin formerly with our office of Market Incentives, seeking an interpretation of the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541). Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to give you some general background information on the statutory provisions underlying the theft prevention standard. Section 602(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2022(a)) specifies that this agency shall promulgate a vehicle theft prevention standard that applies with respect to - (1) the covered major parts which are installed by manufacturers in passenger motor vehicles in lines designated under section 603 as high theft lines, and (2) the major replacement parts for the major parts described in paragraph (1). The term 'line' is defined in section 601(2) as 'a name which a manufacturer applies to a group of motor vehicle models of the same make which have the same body or chassis, or otherwise are similar in construction or design.' Finally, section 603(d) of the Cost Savings Act provides that the Secretary may not render the standard inapplicable to any line which at any time has been subject to the standard, except if the line is exempted under section 605 because it is equipped with an effective antitheft device as standard equipment. With this background, I will now address the two statements in your letter. 1. A manufacturer that is not required to mark a 1987 line in accordance with the theft prevention standard, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the line is not an actual or likely high theft line, will not be required to mark a new 1990 line bearing the same name as the 1987 line, even if subsequent annual surveys of vehicle theft rates show that this line's theft rate is higher than the median theft rate. This statement is inaccurate in two important areas. First, when a line is modified from one model year to the next, NHTSA does not simply treat a new model year's line as a continuation of the previous model year's line even if both groups of vehicles have the same name. Indeed, the definition in section 601(2) does not allow the agency to do so. Instead, the statutory definition requires the vehicle groups to have both the same name and be similar in construction or design. The agency has in several instances determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were continuations of the previous line, even though the new vehicles used all new sheet metal and drivetrains as compared with the previous group of vehicles. This determination was based on the fact that the vehicles were still similar in construction or design to the older vehicles they replaced. On the other hand, NHTSA has also determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were nevertheless new lines, because of significant changes in the construction or design of the vehicle. For instance, when a vehicle is redesigned to be a front wheel drive, it is not treated as the same line as the predecessor rear wheel drive line, even if the newly designed vehicle has the same name as the older vehicles. This means that your assumption that new vehicles carrying the same name as older vehicles will necessarily be treated as the same line is incorrect. Second, there is no statutory prohibition against the agency reclassifying a line it previously determined to be a likely low theft line as a high theft line, based on actual theft data, if the line was introduced into commerce after January 1, 1983. In your example, let us assume that NHTSA determined that the 1987 line was a likely low theft line, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 49 CFR Part 542. If actual theft data for 1987, 1988, and 1989 showed the line was in fact a high theft line, the Cost Savings Act does not forbid NHTSA from selecting the 1990 model year cars as a high theft line, even if the 1990 version of the line were just a continuation of the line from previous model years. Such a selection would obligate the manufacturer to mark the line in accordance with Part 541 beginning in the 1990 model year. For lines introduced into commerce on or before January 1, 1983, Congress specified the procedure to be followed to determine whether the line is high theft in section 603(a)(1)(A) of the Cost Savings Act. Lines that were not selected as high theft lines according to that procedure cannot be selected as high theft lines according to the procedures to be followed for lines introduced into commerce on or before January 1, 1983 and if the 1990 version of the line were just a continuation of the 1987 line, your understanding is correct. The agency cannot reclassify such a line even if subsequent theft data shows the line's theft rate is higher than the median theft rate. 2. A manufacturer that is required to mark a 1987 line in accordance with the theft prevention standard, because NHTSA has determined that the line is an actual or likely high theft line, will be required to mark a new 1990 line bearing the same name as the 1987 line, even if subsequent annual surveys of vehicle theft rates show that this line's theft rate is lower than the median theft rate. This statement if also inaccurate. For the reasons set forth above, the new 1990 line is not automatically treated as the same line as the 1987 line, even if it bears the same name. If it were not considered to be the same line as the earlier one, NHTSA would make a determination of whether the new 1990 lines was a likely high or low theft line, following the procedures set forth in 49 CFR Part 542. However, if the line were determined to be a continuation of the old line, and not a new line, your statement would be accurate. Section 603(d) of the Cost Savings Act prohibits the agency from rendering the standard inapplicable to any line which at any time has been subject to the standard, unless the line is exempted pursuant to section 605 of the Cost Savings Act and if, (1) the 1987 version of a line was subject to the theft prevention standard, and (2) the 1990 version of the line were deemed a continuation of the 1987 line, the 1990 version of the line must be subject tot he marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. If you have any further questions or need more information about this topic, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika S. Jones Chief Counsel;