Interpretation ID: aiam4170
Executive Director
Vehicle Security Association
5100 Forbes Boulevard
Lanham
MD 20706;
Dear Mr. Lowe: This responds to your letter dated July 22, 1986, requesting thi agency to withdraw the granting of four petitions for exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard.; You state in your letter that the Vehicle Security Association (VSA challenges the granting of petitions to Volkswagen of America, Inc., General Motors Corporation, Isuzu Motors Corporation, and Nissan Research and Development, Inc., for exemption of certain vehicle lines beginning in model year 1987. For the reasons given below, the agency believes these petitions for exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard were properly granted according to the requirements of section 605 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and 49 CFR Part 543, *Petitions for Exemption from the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*.; You state that the lack of theft data concerning vehicles marked i accordance with the theft prevention standard makes it difficult for NHTSA to make a determination, based upon substantial evidence, that a standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective as compliance with Part 541 in reducing and deterring theft. You add that the agency is not required to approve petitions for exemption and request that the agency withdraw its grants of those petitions for that reason.; Section 605 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Ac permits vehicle manufacturers to petition NHTSA to allow high theft vehicle lines to be exempted from the standard. To be exempted, a high theft line must be equipped with an antitheft device as standard equipment and NHTSA must determine that antitheft device is likely to be as effective as parts marking in reducing and deterring theft. This section requires that the agency's determination to grant or deny a petition be made within 120 days after the date of filing the petition. If the agency fails to make a determination within the specified time period, this section also states that the petition shall be considered granted.; In the notices granting the petitions filed by these fou manufacturers, NHTSA noted that the limited and apparently conflicting data on the effectiveness of the pre-standard parts marking programs makes it difficult in the first year of this legislation's implementation to compare the effectiveness of an antitheft device with the effectiveness of compliance with the theft prevention standard. Section 605 clearly requires such a comparison, which the agency has made on the basis of the limited data available. However, the House Committee Report stated that section 605 was adopted because the Committee was willing to give standard equipment antitheft devices 'an opportunity to be proved as effective in deterring theft as the numbering standard.' H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., at 17. The agency believes that Congress did not intend that the data limitations in the early phase of implementing the theft prevention standard result in across-the board denials of exemption petitions.; If, as the standard is implemented, NHTSA receives data indicating tha a manufacturer's antitheft device has not been as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the theft prevention standard, the agency may terminate the exemption under section 605(d). The agency will be monitoring these and other theft data in an attempt to effectively implement the purposes of the vehicle theft legislation.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel