69688 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1Above 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. 

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. 

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: 

PART 1820—APPLICATION 

PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1820 

continues to read as follows: 

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: 

§ 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 

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. 

On May 19, 2005, the agency 

published a final rule responding to 

petitions for reconsideration of the 2004 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 69689 

2See 70 FR 28843, Docket No. NHTSA–2005–

21233. 

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. 

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,’’

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