Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24179

alcohol related causes have increased.

These other causes include drivercontrolled behaviors such as driving

while fatigued, aggressive driving, and

distracted driving (including cell phone

use, talking to others in the vehicle,

eating, and reading). NHTSA is

committed to the development of

effective programs to reduce the

incidence of these crashes

While alcohol-related driving is

studied by numerous sources, relatively

little is known about the public’s

attitudes and behaviors with respect to

those other driver-controlled factors. In

order for NHTSA to properly plan and

evaluate programs directed at reducing

crashes, and to provide information to

support states, localities and law

enforcement agencies, it needs to

understand the public’s current beliefs

and behaviors.

The findings from these proposed

collections will assist NHTSA in

identifying the extent of the problem,

the public’s perceptions of the dangers

of these various problem-driving actions

and potential acceptance of various

strategies to reduce related fatalities.

NHTSA will use the findings to help

focus current programs and activities to

achieve the greatest benefit, to develop

new programs to decrease the likelihood

of drivers engaging in these problemdriving behaviors, and to provide

informational support to states, and

localities that will aid them in their

efforts to reduce problem-driving related

crashes and injuries.

Description of the Likely Respondents

(Including Estimated Number, and

Proposed Frequency of Response to the

Collection of Information)

Under these proposed collections,

telephone interviews averaging

approximately 15 minutes in length will

be administered to two separate

randomly selected samples of 2,000

persons of the general driving age public

age 16 and older. The respondent

samples would be selected from all 50

states, plus the District of Columbia.

Interviews would be conducted with

persons at residential phone numbers

selected using a modified random-digitdialing methodology. No more than one

respondent per household would be

selected, and each sample member

would complete just one interview.

Businesses are ineligible for the sample

and would not be interviewed.

Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting

and Record Keeping Burden Resulting

from the Collection of Information

NHTSA estimates that respondents in

the sample would require an average of

15 minutes to complete the telephone

interview. Thus, estimated reporting

burden on the general public would

total 1,000 hours for the proposed

surveys. The respondents would not

incur any reporting or record keeping

cost from the information collection.

Rose A. McMurray,

Associate Administrator, Office of Traffic

Safety Programs.

[FR Doc. 01–11945 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Petition for Exemption From the

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention

Standard; General Motors

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

SUMMARY: This document grants in full

the petition of General Motors

Corporation (GM) for an exemption of a

high-theft line, the Chevrolet Venture,

from the parts-marking 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 partsmarking requirements of the Theft

Prevention Standard.

DATES: The exemption granted by this

notice is effective beginning with model

year (MY) 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Rosalind Proctor, Office of Planning and

Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590. Ms. Proctor’s telephone number

is (202) 366–0846. Her fax number is

(202) 493–2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a

petition dated October 5, 2000, General

Motors Corporation (GM), requested an

exemption from the parts-marking

requirements of the Theft Prevention

Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the

Chevrolet Venture vehicle line

beginning withMY 2002. The petition is

pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption

From Vehicle Theft Prevention

Standard, which provides for

exemptions based on the installation of

an antitheft device as standard

equipment on a vehicle line.

Section 33106(b)(2)(D) of Title 49,

United States Code, authorized the

Secretary of Transportation to grant an

exemption from the parts marking

requirements for not more than one

additional line of a manufacturer for

MYs 1997—2000. However, it does not

address the contingency of what to do

after model year 2000 in the absence of

a decision under Section 33103(d). 49

U.S.C. § 33103(d)(3) states that the

number of lines for which the agency

can grant an exemption is to be decided

after the Attorney General completes a

review of the effectiveness of antitheft

devices and finds that antitheft devices

are an effective substitute for parts

marking. The Attorney General has not

yet made a finding and has not decided

the number of lines, if any, for which

the agency will be authorized to grant

an exemption. Upon consultation with

the Department of Justice, we

determined that the appropriate reading

of Section 33103(d) is that the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) may continue to grant partsmarking exemptions for not more than

one additional model line each year, as

specified for model years 1997–2000 by

49 U.S.C. 33106(b)(2)(C). This is the

level contemplated by the Act for the

period before the Attorney General’s

decision. The final decision on whether

to continue granting exemptions will be

made by the Attorney General at the

conclusion of the review pursuant to

section 330103(d)(3).

GM’s submission is considered a

complete petition as required by 49 CFR

part 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 that vehicle

line. GM will install its PASS-Key III

antitheft device as standard equipment

on its MY 2002 Chevrolet Venture

vehicle line. GM stated that the PASSKey III device provides the same kind of

functionality as the PASS-Key and

PASS-Key II devices, which have been

the basis for exemptions previously

granted to GM. However, the PASS-Key

III device uses more advanced

technology than the PASS-Key II device

and provides new features and

refinements.

Specifically, the PASS-Key III device

uses a transponder embedded in the

head of the key which is excited by a

coil surrounding the key cylinder. The

transponder in the key then emits a

modulated signal at a specified radio

frequency. The identity of the key is a

unique code within the modulated

signal. The key cylinder coil receives

and sends the modulated signal to the

24180 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices

decoder. When the decoder module

recognizes a valid key code, it sends an

encoded message to the Powertrain

Control Module (PCM) to enable fuel

flow and starter operation. If an invalid

key is detected, the PASS-Key III

decoder module will transmit a different

password to the PCM to disable fuel

flow and starter operation.

The PASS-Key III device has the

potential for over four trillion unique

electrical key codes. GM believes that

the sheer volume of these codes is a

highly effective deterrent to the

common intruder. The PASS-Key III

device is designed to shut down for

three to four minutes if an invalid key

is detected, preventing further attempts

to start the vehicle during that

shutdown.

GM states that the design and

assembly process of the PASS-Key III

device and components are validated for

a vehicle life of 10 years and 150,000

miles of performance. 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 it complied

with the specified requirements for each

test.

GM compared the PASS-Key III

device proposed for the Chevrolet

Venture line with its first generation

PASS-Key device, 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 stated

that its PASS-Key III device is activated

when the owner/operator turns off the

ignition of the vehicle and removes the

key. According to GM, no other

intentional action is necessary to

achieve protection of the vehicle other

than removing the key from the ignition.

GM 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.

Further, GM states that the PASS-Key

III device has been designed to

significantly enhance the functionality

and theft protection provided by earlier

generations of PASS-Key devices. Based

on the performance of PASS-Key and

PASS-Key II devices on other GM

models, and the advanced technology

utilized in the PASS-Key III device, GM

believes that the PASS-Key III device

will be more effective in deterring theft

than the parts-marking requirements of

49 CFR part 541.

GM also stated that as with previous

PASS-Key devices, the PASS-Key III

device will not provide any visible or

audible indication of unauthorized

entry. However, based on comparison of

the reduction in theft rates of Chevrolet

Corvettes using a passive antitheft

device and an audible/visible alarm

with the reduction in theft rates for the

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 devices on

these vehicles (PASS-Key and PASSKey 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 transmission), as a

supplement to the antitheft device. Like

those earlier antitheft devices GM used,

the 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

543.6(a)(3), that is, it cannot call

attention to unauthorized attempts to

enter or move the vehicle.

After deciding those petitions,

however, the agency obtained theft data

that show declining theft rates for GM

vehicles equipped with either version of

the PASS-Key device. Based on that

data, it concluded that the lack of a

visible or audible alarm had not

prevented the antitheft device from

being effective protection against theft

and granted three GM petitions for full

exemptions for car lines equipped with

the PASS-Key II device. The agency

granted in full the petition for the Buick

Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora car lines

beginning with model year 1995, (see 58

FR 44874, August 25, 1993); the

Chevrolet Lumina and Buick Regal car

lines beginning with model year 1996,

(see 60 FR 25938, May 15, 1995); and,

the petition for the Cadillac Seville car

line beginning with model year 1998,

(see 62 FR 20058, April 24, 1997). In all

three 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 visible or

audible alarm.

The agency concludes that, given the

similarities between the PASS-Key III

device and the earlier PASS-Key devices

(PASS-Key and PASS-Key II), it is

reasonable to assume that PASS-Key III

device, like those devices, will be as

effective as parts-marking in deterring

theft. The agency believes that the

device will provide the other 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,

some of which includes confidential

information describing reliability and

functional tests conducted by GM for

the antitheft device and its components.

GM requested confidential treatment for

some of the information and

attachments submitted in support of its

petition. In a letter to GM dated January

2, 2001, the agency granted the

petitioner’s request for confidential

treatment of these materials.

For the foregoing reasons, the agency

hereby grants in full GM’s petition for

exemption for the MY 2002 Chevrolet

Venture vehicle line from the partsmarking requirements of 49 CFR part

541.

If GM decides not to use the

exemption for this line, it must notify

the agency formally, and thereafter must

mark the line fully 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 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24181

1See Dickinson Osceola Railroad Association—

Acquisition and Operation Exemption—Union

Pacific Railroad Company, STB Finance Docket No.

34008 (STB served Mar. 5, 2001).

antitheft device. The significance of

many such changes could be de

minimis. The agency wishes to

minimize the administrative burden

which § 543.9(c)(2) could place on

exempted vehicle manufacturers and

itself. 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: May 7, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety,

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–11946 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34037]

General Railway Corporation d/b/a

Iowa Northwestern Railroad

Corporation—Operation Exemption—

Line of Dickinson Osceola Railroad

Association

General Railway Corporation d/b/a

Iowa Northwestern Railroad

Corporation (GRC), a noncarrier, has

filed a notice of exemption under 49

CFR 1150.31 to operate approximately

37.21 miles of rail line currently owned

by Dickinson Osceola Railroad

Association (DORA). The rail line to be

operated extends between milepost

79.34, at a point west of Superior, IA,

and the end of the line at approximately

milepost 116.55, a point west of

Allendorf, IA, in Dickinson and Osceola

Counties, IA. GRC states that, on April

2, 2001, an agreement was reached

between it and DORA, wherein DORA

designated GRC as operator of the line.

GRC further states that ownership of the

line is expected to be transferred to GRC

from DORA in the near future. GRC

certifies that its projected revenues will

not exceed those that would qualify it

as a Class III rail carrier and its revenues

are not projected to exceed $5 million.1

The transaction was scheduled to be

consummated on or shortly after May 2,

2001 (7 days after the exemption was

filed).

If the notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)

may be filed at any time. The filing of

a petition to revoke will not

automatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 34037, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, one copy of each

pleading must be served on John Larkin,

General Railway Corporation, 4814

Douglas St., Omaha, NE 68132.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

www.stb.dot.gov.

Decided: May 4, 2001.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–11825 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P