Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices 24587

Issued on: April 27, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–11783 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Petition for Modification of Exemption

From the Vehicle Theft Prevention

Standard; General Motors Corp.

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

SUMMARY: This notice grants in full the

petition of General Motors Corporation

(GM) for an exemption of a high-theft

line, the Oldsmobile Alero (formerly the

Oldsmobile Achieva), from the partsmarking requirements of the Federal

Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention

Standard. This petition is granted

because the agency has determined that

the antitheft device to be placed on the

line as standard equipment is likely to

be as effective in reducing and deterring

motor vehicle theft as compliance with

the parts-marking requirements of the

Theft Prevention Standard. GM

requested confidential treatment for

some of the information and

attachments submitted in support of its

petition. In a letter to GM dated

November 26, 1997, the agency granted

the petitioner’s request for confidential

treatment of most aspects of its petition.

DATES: The exemption granted by this

notice is effective beginning with model

year (MY) 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Rosalind Proctor, Office of Planning and

Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC

20590. Ms. Proctor’s telephone number

is (202) 366–0846. Her fax number is

(202) 493–2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a

petition dated October 25, 1997, General

Motors Corporation (GM) informed the

agency of its planned nameplate change

for its Oldsmobile Achieva car line

beginning with model year (MY) 1999.

GM also informed the agency that the

nameplate for the Oldsmobile Achieva

will be changed to Oldsmobile Alero,

and that the Alero car line will be a

continuation of the Achieva line. The

Achieva car line is subject to the partsmarking requirements of the theft

prevention standard.

In its petition dated October 25, 1997,

GM requested an exemption from the

parts-marking requirements of the Theft

Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541)

for the Oldsmobile Alero car line. The

petition is pursuant to 49 CFR part 543,

Exemption From Vehicle Theft

Prevention Standard, based on the

installation of an antitheft device as

standard equipment for the entire line.

GM’s submittal is considered a

complete petition, as required by 49

CFR 543.7, in that it met the general

requirements contained in § 543.5 and

the specific content requirements of

§ 543.6.

In its petition, GM provided a detailed

description and diagram of the identity,

design, and location of the components

of the antitheft device for the new line.

GM will install its ‘‘Passlock’’ antitheft

device as standard equipment on its MY

1999 Oldsmobile Alero car line.

In order to ensure the reliability and

durability of the device, GM conducted

tests based on its own specified

standards. GM provided a detailed list

of the tests conducted. GM stated its

belief that the device is reliable and

durable since the device complied with

GM’s specified requirements for each

test.

GM compared the ‘‘Passlock’’ device

proposed for the Alero car line with its

first generation ‘‘PASS-Key’’ and

‘‘PASS-Key II’’ devices which the

agency has determined to be as effective

in reducing and deterring motor vehicle

theft as would compliance with the

parts-marking requirements. GM

believes that its ‘‘Passlock’’ antitheft

device will be at least as effective as the

‘‘PASS-Key’’ and ‘‘PASS-Key II’’

devices.

The following GM car lines have the

‘‘Passlock’’ device as standard

equipment and have been granted a full

exemption from the parts-marking

requirements: The Chevrolet Cavalier,

beginning with MY 1997 (see 61 FR

12132, March 25, 1996) and the Pontiac

Sunfire, beginning with MY 1998 (see

62 FR 20240, April 25, 1997). The

‘‘Passlock’’ device provides the same

kind of functionality as the ‘‘PASS-Key’’

and ‘‘PASS-Key II’’ devices, but features

a coded lock cylinder rather than an

electrically coded ignition key. The

‘‘Passlock’’ device utilizes an electronic

sensor located near the ignition lock

instead of a coded key, allowing the

device to incorporate a standard key.

GM stated that when the sensor detects

proper lock rotation, it sends a code to

the controller. If the correct code is

received, fuel is enabled. If an incorrect

code is received, fuel is disabled.

GM also stated that the theft rates, as

reported by the National Crime

Information Center, are lower for GM

models equipped with ‘‘PASS-Key’’-like

devices which have been granted

exemptions from the parts-marking

requirements than theft rates for similar,

earlier models that have been partsmarked. Therefore, GM concludes that

the ‘‘PASS-Key’’-like devices are more

effective in deterring motor vehicle theft

than the parts-marking requirements of

49 CFR part 541. GM also concluded

that based on the system performance of

the ‘‘PASS-Key’’-like devices on other

GM models, and the similarity of design

and functionality of the device on the

Oldsmobile Alero to the ‘‘PASS-Key’’

device, GM believes that the agency

should determine that the ‘‘Passlock’’

device will be at least as effective in

reducing and deterring motor vehicle

theft as the parts-marking requirements

of the Theft Prevention Standard (49

CFR part 541).

Based on comparison of the reduction

in theft rates of Corvettes using a

passive antitheft system and audible/

visible alarm with the reduction in theft

rates for Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac

Firebird models equipped with a

passive antitheft device without an

alarm, GM believes that an alarm or

similar attention attracting device is not

necessary and does not compromise the

antitheft performance of these systems.

The agency notes that the reason that

the vehicle lines whose theft data GM

cites in support of its petition received

only a partial exemption from partsmarking was that the agency did not

believe that the antitheft device on these

vehicles (‘‘PASS-Key’’ and ‘‘PASS-Key

II’’) by itself would be as effective as

parts-marking in deterring theft because

it lacked an alarm system. On that basis,

it decided to require GM to mark the

vehicle’s most interchangeable parts

(the engine and the transmission), as a

supplement to the antitheft device. Like

those earlier antitheft devices GM used,

the new ‘‘Passlock’’ device on which

this petition is based also lacks an alarm

system. Accordingly, it cannot perform

one of the functions listed in 49 CFR

Part 542.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention

to unauthorized attempts to enter or

move the vehicle.

Since deciding those petitions,

however, the agency became aware that

theft data shows declining theft rates for

GM vehicles equipped with either

version of the ‘‘PASS-Key’’ system.

Based on that data, it concluded that the

lack of a visual or audio alarm had not

prevented the antitheft system from

being effective protection against theft

and granted two GM petitions for full

exemptions for car lines equipped with

‘‘PASS-Key II’’. See 60 FR 25939 (May

15, 1995) granting in full the petition for
24588 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices

1A copy of each diskette submitted to the Board

should be provided to any other party upon request.

2The current market dominance guidelines are

set forth in Product and Geographic Competition,

2 I.C.C.2d 1, 20–22 (1985) (Market Dominance III).

Chevrolet Lumina and Buick Regal car

lines equipped with ‘‘PASS-Key II’’; and

58 FR 44874 (August 25, 1993), granting

in full the petition for exemption of

Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora

car lines equipped with ‘‘PASS-Key II’’.

In both of those instances, the agency

concluded that a full exemption was

warranted because ‘‘PASS-Key II’’ had

shown itself as likely as parts-marking

to be effective protection against theft

despite the absence of a visual or audio

alarm.

The agency concludes that, given the

similarities between the ‘‘Passlock’’

device and the ‘‘PASS-Key’’ and ‘‘PASSKey II’’ systems, it is reasonable to

assume that ‘‘Passlock’’, like those

systems, will be as effective as partsmarking in deterring theft. Accordingly,

it has granted this petition for

exemption in full and will not require

any parts to be marked on the

Oldsmobile Alero car line beginning

with MY 1999.

The agency believes that the device

will provide the types of performance

listed in 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3): promoting

activation; preventing defeat or

circumvention of the device by

unauthorized persons; preventing

operation of the vehicle by

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the

reliability and durability of the device.

As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and

49 CFR 543.6(a)(4) and (5), the agency

finds that GM has provided adequate

reasons for its belief that the antitheft

device will reduce and deter theft. This

conclusion is based on the information

GM provided about its antitheft device.

This confidential information included

a description of reliability and

functional tests conducted by GM for

the antitheft device and its components.

For the foregoing reasons, the agency

hereby grants in full GM’s petition for

exemption for the MY 1999 Oldsmobile

Alero car line from the parts-marking

requirements of 49 CFR part 541.

If GM decides not to use the

exemption for this line, it must formally

notify the agency, and, thereafter, the

line must be fully marked as required by

49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of

major component parts and replacement

parts).

NHTSA notes that if GM wishes in the

future to modify the device on which

this exemption is based, the company

may have to submit a petition to modify

the exemption. § 543.7(d) states that a

part 543 exemption applies only to

vehicles that belong to a line exempted

under this part and equipped with the

antitheft device on which the line’s

exemption is based. Further,

§ 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission

of petitions ‘‘to modify an exemption to

permit the use of an antitheft device

similar to but differing from the one

specified in that exemption.’’ The

agency wishes to minimize the

administrative burden which

§ 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted

vehicle manufacturers and itself.

The agency did not intend in drafting

part 543 to require the submission of a

modification petition for every change

to the components or design of an

antitheft device. The significance of

many such changes could be de

minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests

that if the manufacturer contemplates

making any changes the effects of which

might be characterized as de minimis, it

should consult the agency before

preparing and submitting a petition to

modify.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: April 29, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–11782 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[STB Ex Parte No. 627]

Market Dominance Determinations—

Product and Geographic Competition

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of Proposal to Eliminate

Product and Geographic Competition

From Consideration in Market

Dominance Determinations.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to its decision in

Review of Rail Access and Competition

Issues, STB Ex Parte No. 575 (STB

served Apr. 17, 1998), the Board is

instituting a proceeding to consider

removing product and geographic

competition as factors in market

dominance determinations in railroad

rate proceedings. The Board requests

that persons intending to participate in

this proceeding notify the agency of that

intent. A separate service list will be

issued based on the notices of intent to

participate that the Board receives.

DATES: Notices of intent to participate in

this proceeding are due May 12, 1998.

Comments on this proposal are due May

29, 1998. Replies are due June 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: An original plus 12 copies

of all comments and replies, referring to

STB Ex Parte No. 627, must be sent to

the Office of the Secretary, Case Control

Unit, ATTN: STB Ex Parte No. 627,

Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001.

Copies of the written comments will

be available from the Board’s contractor,

D.C. News and Data, Inc., located in

Room 210 in the Board’s building. D.C.

News can be reached at (202) 289–4357.

The comments will also be available for

viewing and self copying in the Board’s

Microfilm Unit, Room 755.

In addition to an original and 12

copies of all paper documents filed with

the Board, the parties shall submit their

pleadings, including any graphics, on a

3.5-inch diskette formatted for

WordPerfect 7.0 (or in a format readily

convertible into WordPerfect 7.0). All

textual material, including cover letters,

certificates of service, appendices and

exhibits, shall be included in a single

file on the diskette. The diskettes shall

be clearly labeled with the filer’s name,

the docket number of this proceeding,

STB Ex Parte No. 627, and the name of

the electronic format used on the

diskette for files other than those

formatted in WordPerfect 7.0. All

pleadings submitted on diskettes will be

posted on the Board’s website

(www.stb.dot.gov). The electronic

submission requirements set forth in

this notice supersede, for the purposes

of this proceeding, the otherwise

applicable electronic submission

requirements set forth in the Board’s

regulations. See 49 CFR 1104.3(a), as

amended in Expedited Procedures for

Processing Rail Rate Reasonableness,

Exemption and Revocation Proceedings,

STB Ex Parte No. 527, 61 FR 52710, 711

(Oct. 8, 1996), 61 FR 58490, 58491 (Nov.

15, 1996).1

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565–1600.

[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202)

565–1695.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In STB Ex

Parte No. 575, the Board conducted two

days of informational hearings, on April

2 and 3, 1998, to examine issues of rail

access and competition in today’s

railroad industry, and the statutory

remedies and agency regulations and

procedures that relate to those matters.

As a result of those hearings, we

announced, inter alia, that we would

commence a proceeding to consider

eliminating the product and geographic

competition factors of our market

dominance guidelines in cases

challenging the reasonableness of rail

rates.2

Under 49 U.S.C. 10707, the Board can

entertain a challenge to the

reasonableness of a rail rate only if we