11002 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction because this 

rule involves a regulation establishing, 

disestablishing, or changing Regulated 

Navigation Areas and security or safety 

zones. 

An environmental analysis checklist 

and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 165.814— 

■ a. Remove paragraph (b); 

■ b. Redesignate paragraph (c) as (b); 

and 

■ c. Add paragraph (a)(5)(vi) and revise 

redesignated paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.814 Security Zone; Captain of the 

Port Houston-Galveston Zone. 

(a) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(vi) The Freeport LNG Basin 

containing all waters shoreward of a 

line drawn between the eastern point at 

latitude 28°56′25′′ N, 095°18′13′′ W, and 

the western point at 28°56′28′′ N, 

095°18′31′′ W, east towards the jetties. 

(b) * * * 

(2) Other persons or vessels requiring 

entry into a zone described in this 

section must request express permission 

to enter from the Captain of the Port 

Houston-Galveston, or designated 

representative. The Captain of the Port 

Houston-Galveston’s designated 

representatives are any personnel 

granted authority by the Captain of the 

Port Houston-Galveston to receive, 

evaluate, and issue written security 

zone entry permits, or the designated 

on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol 

personnel described in paragraph (b)(4). 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 28, 2009. 

M.E. Woodring, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Houston-Galveston. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5056 Filed 3–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R04–RCRA–2008–0900; FRL–9124–8] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Final Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is granting the petition 

submitted by The Valero Refining 

Company—Tennessee, LLC (Valero) to 

exclude or ‘‘delist’’ a certain sediment 

generated by its Memphis Refinery in 

Memphis, Tennessee from the lists of 

hazardous wastes. This final rule 

responds to a petition submitted by 

Valero to delist F037 waste. The F037 

waste is sediment generated in the 

Storm Water Basin. 

After careful analysis and use of the 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS), EPA has concluded the 

petitioned waste is not hazardous waste. 

The F037 exclusion is a one-time 

exclusion for 2,700 cubic yards of the 

F037 Storm Water Basin sediment. 

Accordingly, this final rule excludes the 

petitioned waste from the requirements 

of hazardous waste regulations under 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 10, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this 

final rule is available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the RCRA and OPA Enforcement and 

Compliance Branch, RCRA Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal 

Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303 and is available for 

viewing through the EPA Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) from 9 a.m. to 

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding Federal holidays. Call the 

FOIA Officer at (404) 562–8028 for 

appointments. The public may copy 

material from any regulatory docket at 

no cost for the first 100 pages and at a 

cost of $0.15 per page for additional 

copies. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11003 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Lippert, North Enforcement and 

Compliance Section, (Mail Code 4WD– 

RCRA), RCRA and OPA Enforcement 

and Compliance Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal 

Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303 or call (404) 562–8605 or 

via electronic mail at 

lippert.kristin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing? 

B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action? 

C. What Are the Limits of This Exclusion? 

D. How Will Valero Manage the Waste, 

When Delisted? 

E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion 

Effective? 

F. How Does This Final Rule Affect States? 

II. Background 

A. What Is a Delisting? 

B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To 

Delist a Waste? 

C. What Information Must the Generator 

Supply? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What Waste Did Valero Petition EPA To 

Delist? 

B. How Much Waste Did Valero Propose 

To Delist? 

C. How did Valero Sample and Analyze the 

Waste Data in This Petition? 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusions 

A. Who Submitted Comments on the 

Proposed Rules? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing? 

After evaluating the petition for 

Valero, EPA proposed, on July 9, 2009, 

to exclude the waste from the lists of 

hazardous waste under § 261.31. EPA is 

finalizing the decision to grant Valero’s 

delisting petition to have its F037 Storm 

Water Basin Sediment excluded, or 

delisted, from the definition of a 

hazardous waste, once it is disposed in 

a Subtitle D landfill. 

B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action? 

Valero’s petition requests a delisting 

from the F037 waste listing under 40 

CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Valero does not 

believe that the petitioned waste meets 

the criteria for which EPA listed it. 

Valero also believes no additional 

constituents or factors could cause the 

waste to be hazardous. EPA’s review of 

this petition included consideration of 

the original listing criteria, and the 

additional factors required by the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See 

section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(1)–(4) 

(hereinafter all sectional references are 

to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). 

In making the final delisting 

determination, EPA evaluated the 

petitioned waste against the listing 

criteria and factors cited in 

§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this 

review, EPA agrees with the petitioner 

that the waste is nonhazardous with 

respect to the original listing criteria. (If 

EPA had found, based on this review, 

that the waste remained hazardous 

based on the factors for which the waste 

was originally listed, EPA would have 

proposed to deny the petition.) EPA 

evaluated the waste with respect to 

other factors or criteria to assess 

whether there is a reasonable basis to 

believe that such additional factors 

could cause the wastes to be hazardous. 

EPA considered whether the waste is 

acutely toxic, the concentrations of the 

constituents in the waste, their tendency 

to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their 

persistence in the environment once 

released from the waste, plausible and 

specific types of management of the 

petitioned waste, the quantities of waste 

generated, and waste variability. EPA 

believes that the petitioned waste does 

not meet the listing criteria and thus 

should not be a listed waste. EPA’s final 

decision to delist the waste from 

Valero’s facility is based on the 

information submitted in support of this 

rule, including description of the waste 

and analytical data from the Memphis, 

Tennessee facility. 

C. What Are the Limits of This 

Exclusion? 

This exclusion applies to the waste 

described in Valero’s petition only if the 

requirements described in 40 CFR part 

261, Appendix IX, Table 1 and the 

conditions contained herein are 

satisfied. 

D. How Will Valero Manage the Waste, 

When Delisted? 

The delisted F037 Storm Water Basin 

Sediment will be dispose of in a Subtitle 

D landfill which is permitted, licensed, 

or registered by a State to manage 

industrial waste. 

E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion 

Effective? 

This rule is effective March 10, 2010. 

The Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 amended section 

3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1), 

allow rules to become effective in less 

than six months after the rule is 

published when the regulated 

community does not need the six-month 

period to come into compliance. That is 

the case here because this rule reduces, 

rather than increases, the existing 

requirements for persons generating 

hazardous waste. This reduction in 

existing requirements also provides a 

basis for making this rule effective 

immediately, upon publication, under 

the Administrative Procedure Act, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

F. How Does This Final Rule Affect 

States? 

Because EPA is issuing this exclusion 

under the Federal RCRA delisting 

program, only States subject to Federal 

RCRA delisting provisions would be 

affected. This would exclude States 

which have received authorization from 

EPA to make their own delisting 

decisions. 

EPA allows States to impose their 

own non-RCRA regulatory requirements 

that are more stringent than EPA’s, 

under section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6929. These more stringent 

requirements may include a provision 

that prohibits a Federally issued 

exclusion from taking effect in the State. 

A dual system (that is, both Federal 

(RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) 

programs) may regulate a petitioner’s 

waste, EPA urges petitioners to contact 

the State regulatory authority to 

establish the status of their wastes under 

the State law. 

EPA has also authorized some States 

(for example, Louisiana, Oklahoma, 

Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA 

delisting program in place of the Federal 

program, that is, to make State delisting 

decisions. Therefore, this exclusion 

does not apply in those authorized 

States unless that State makes the rule 

part of its authorized program. If Valero 

transports the petitioned waste to or 

manages the waste in any State with 

delisting authorization, Valero must 

obtain delisting authorization from that 

State before it can manage the waste as 

nonhazardous in the State. 

II. Background 

A. What Is a Delisting Petition? 

A delisting petition is a request from 

a generator to EPA or another agency 

with jurisdiction to exclude or delist, 

from the RCRA list of hazardous waste, 

waste the generator believes should not 

be considered hazardous under RCRA. 

B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To 

Delist a Waste? 

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, 

facilities may petition EPA to remove 

their wastes from hazardous waste 

regulation by excluding them from the 

lists of hazardous wastes contained in 

§§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
11004 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 260.20 allows any person to petition 

the Administrator to modify or revoke 

any provision of 40 CFR parts 260 

through 265 and 268. Section 260.22 

provides generators the opportunity to 

petition the Administrator to exclude a 

waste from a particular generating 

facility from the hazardous waste lists. 

C. What Information Must the Generator 

Supply? 

Petitioners must provide sufficient 

information to EPA to allow EPA to 

determine that the waste to be excluded 

does not meet any of the criteria under 

which the waste was listed as a 

hazardous waste. In addition, the 

Administrator must determine, where 

he/she has a reasonable basis to believe 

that factors (including additional 

constituents) other than those for which 

the waste was listed could cause the 

waste to be a hazardous waste and that 

such factors do not warrant retaining the 

waste as a hazardous waste. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What Waste Did Valero Petition EPA 

To Delist? 

On July 25, 2008, Valero petitioned 

EPA to exclude from the lists of 

hazardous waste contained in § 261.31 

and 261.32, F037 Storm Water Basin 

Sediment. 

B. How Much Waste Did Valero Propose 

To Delist? 

Valero requested that EPA grant a 

one-time exclusion for 2,700 cubic yards 

of the F037 Storm Water Basin 

Sediment. 

C. How did Valero Sample and Analyze 

the Waste Data in This Petition? 

To support its petition, Valero 

submitted: (1) Facility information on 

production processes and waste 

generation processes including 

analytical data from twelve (12) samples 

collected on August 7, 2007, in the 

Storm Water Basin; (2) Results of the 

total constituent list for 40 CFR Part 264 

Appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, 

metals, pesticides, herbicides, dioxins 

and PCB for the sampling on August 7, 

2007; (3) Results of the constituent list 

for Appendix IX on Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

(TCLP) extract for volatiles, 

semivolatiles, and metals for the 

sampling on August 7, 2007; (4) 

Analytical constituents of concern for 

F037 for the sampling on August 7, 

2007; (5) Results from total oil and 

grease analyses for the sampling on 

August 7, 2007; and (6) Summary of the 

July 2006 Sediment Data (Highest 

Results from Detections). 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusions 

A. Who Submitted Comments on the 

Proposed Rules? 

No comments were received on the 

proposed rule for the F037 waste. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is 

not of general applicability and 

therefore is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it 

applies to a particular facility only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or 

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA). Because this rule will affect 

only a particular facility, it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as specified in section 203 

of UMRA. Because this rule will affect 

only a particular facility, this final rule 

does not have federalism implications. 

It will not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132, 

‘‘Federalism,’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this rule. Similarly, 

because this rule will affect only a 

particular facility, this final rule does 

not have Tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR 

22951, November 9, 2000). Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. This rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is that the Agency 

used the DRAS program, which 

considers health and safety risks to 

infants and children, to calculate the 

maximum allowable concentrations for 

this rule. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. This rule does not involve 

technical standards; thus, the 

requirements of Section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

Section 3 of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, 

EPA has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. The Congressional 

Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report which includes a copy of the 

rule to each House of the Congress and 

to the Comptroller General of the United 

States. Section 804 exempts from 

section 801 the following types of rules 

(1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) 

rules relating to agency management or 

personnel; and (3) rules of agency 

organization, procedure, or practice that 

do not substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties 5 

U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to 

submit a rule report regarding today’s 

action under Section 801 because this is 

a rule of particular applicability. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f). 

Dated: March 1, 2010. 

G. Alan Farmer, 

Director, RCRA Division, Region 4. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 

6922, and 6938. 

■ 2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of part 

261 add the following waste stream in 

alphabetical order by facility to read as 

follows: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11005 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

* * * * * * * 

The Valero Refining Company—Tennessee, LLC.Memphis, TN .... Storm Water Basin sediment (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F037) generated one-time at a 

volume of 2,700 cubic yards March 10, 2010 and disposed in Subtitle D landfill. This is a 

one-time exclusion and applies to 2,700 cubic yards of Storm Water Basin sediment. 

(1) Reopener. (A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, Valero possesses or is 

otherwise made aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to leachate 

data or ground water monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified for the delisting verification testing is at level higher 

than the delisting level allowed by the Division Director in granting the petition, then the 

facility must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. 

(B) If Valero fails to submit the information described in paragraph (A) or if any other information is received from any source, the Division Director will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires EPA action to protect human 

health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment. 

(C) If the Division Director determines that the reported information does require EPA action, 

the Division Director will notify the facility in writing of the actions the Division Director believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed EPA action is not necessary. The 

facility shall have 10 days from the date of the Division Director’s notice to present such 

information. 

(D) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph (C) or if no 

information is presented under paragraph initial receipt of information described in paragraphs (A) or (B), the Division Director will issue a final written determination describing 

EPA actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required 

action described in the Division Director’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Division Director provides otherwise. 

(2) Notification Requirements: Valero must do the following before transporting the delisted 

waste: Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition 

and a possible revocation of the decision. 

(A) Provide a one-time written notification to any State Regulatory Agency to which or 

through which they will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60 days 

before beginning such activities. 

(B) Update the one-time written notification, if they ship the delisted waste to a different disposal facility. 

(C) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting variance and a 

possible revocation of the decision. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–5097 Filed 3–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 541 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0085] 

Final Theft Data; Motor Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Publication of final theft data. 

SUMMARY: This document publishes the 

final data on thefts of model year (MY) 

2007 passenger motor vehicles that 

occurred in calendar year (CY) 2007. 

The final 2007 theft data indicated a 

decrease in the vehicle theft rate 

experienced in CY/MY 2007. The final 

theft rate for MY 2007 passenger 

vehicles stolen in calendar year 2007 is 

1.86 thefts per thousand vehicles, a 

decrease of ten percent from the rate of 

2.08 thefts per thousand in 2006. 

Publication of these data fulfills 

NHTSA’s statutory obligation to 

periodically obtain accurate and timely 

theft data and publish the information 

for review and comment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Deborah Mazyck, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Ms. Mazyck’s telephone number is (202) 

366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493– 

2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA 

administers a program for reducing 

motor vehicle theft. The central feature 

of this program is the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 

CFR part 541. The standard specifies 

performance requirements for inscribing 

and affixing vehicle identification 

numbers (VINs) onto certain major 

original equipment and replacement 

parts of high-theft lines of passenger 

motor vehicles. 

The agency is required by 49 U.S.C. 

33104(b)(4) to periodically obtain, from 

the most reliable source, accurate and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES