29374 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Notices

8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

9 15 U.S.C. 78f.

10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the

Act8 because it will facilitate

transactions in securities, promote just

and equitable principles of trade,

remove impediments to and perfect the

mechanisms of a free and open market,

by allowing the ISE to continue to

operate its system on a pilot basis until

August 1, 2001 according to the

established allocation algorithm and

allow market participants to rely upon

the current features of the ISE’s system,

until such time as the Commission has

the opportunity to review the ISE’s

request for permanent approval of its

allocation algorithm.

The Commission finds good cause for

approving the proposed rule change

prior to the thirtieth day after the date

of publication of notice thereof in the

Federal Register. The Commission notes

that the ISE has not requested any

change to its existing allocation

algorithm, which was previously

approved by the Commission on a pilot

basis. Rather, it has requested only a

temporary extension of this pilot

program until August 1, 2001, during

which time the Commission expects to

review the ISE’s proposal for permanent

approval. The Commission notes that it

has received no complaints regarding

the operation of the allocation algorithm

during the pilot period. The

Commission believes, therefore, that

granting accelerated approval of the

proposed rule change is appropriate and

consistent with section 6 of the Act.9

It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to

section 19(b)(2) of the Act,10 that the

proposed rule change is hereby

approved on an accelerated basis as a

pilot scheduled to expire on August 1,

2001.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.11

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–13529 Filed 5–29–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3337]

State of Iowa; Amendment #2

In accordance with a notice received

from the Federal Emergency

Management Agency, dated May 21,

2001, the above-numbered Declaration

is hereby amended to include Henry

and Sac Counties in the State of Iowa as

disaster areas caused by flooding and

severe storms beginning on April 8,

2001 and continuing.

In addition, applications for economic

injury loans from small businesses

located in Cherokee, Crawford and Ida

Counties in the State of Iowa may be

filed until the specified date at the

previously designated location. Any

counties contiguous to the above named

primary counties and not listed here

have been previously declared.

All other information remains the

same, i.e., the deadline for filing

applications for physical damage is July

1, 2001 and for economic injury the

deadline is February 1, 2002.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 59002 and 59008)

Dated: May 23, 2001.

Herbert L. Mitchell,

Associate Administrator for Disaster

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–13561 Filed 5–29–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3340]

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;

Amendment #2

In accordance with a notice received

from the Federal Emergency

Management Agency, dated May 11,

2001, the above-numbered Declaration

is hereby amended to establish the

incident period for this disaster as

beginning on May 6, 2001 and

continuing through May 11, 2001.

All other information remains the

same, i.e., the deadline for filing

applications for physical damage is July

15, 2001 and for economic injury the

deadline is February 15, 2002.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 59002 and 59008)

Dated: May 23, 2001.

Herbert L. Mitchell,

Associate Administrator for Disaster

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–13560 Filed 5–29–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements

Filed During the Week Ending May 18,

2001.

The following Agreements were filed

with the Department of Transportation

under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412

and 414. Answers may be filed within

21 days after the filing of the

application.

Docket Number: OST–2001–9673

Date Filed: May 14, 2001

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association

Subject: PTC2 EUR 0377 dated May

11, 2001, TC2 Within Europe Expedited

Resolution 002tt, PTC2 EUR 0378 dated

May 11, 2001, TC2 Within Europe

Expedited Resolution 002mm, PTC2

EUR 0379 dated May 11, 2001, TC2

Within Europe Expedited Resolution

002o, Intended effective dates:

September 1, September 15, September

17, 2001

Docket Number: OST–2001–9674

Date Filed: May 14, 2001

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association

Subject: PTC2 EUR 0380 dated May

11, 2001, TC2 Within Europe Expedited

Resolution 002p, PTC2 EUR 0381 dated

May 11, 2001, TC2 Within Europe

Expedited Resolution 002v, Intended

effective dates: October 1, November 1,

2001.

Docket Number: OST–2001–9712

Date Filed: May 17, 2001

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association

Subject: PTC COMP 0808 dated May

18, 2001, Mail Vote 125—Resolution

010b, TC2/TC23 Special Passenger

Amending Resolution from Germany,

Intended effective date: June 1, 2001.

Dorothy Y. Beard

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 01–13555 Filed 5–29–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Petition for Exemption From the

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard;

Ford

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 Ford Motor Company

(Ford) for an exemption of a high-theft

line, the Mercury Grand Marquis, 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Notices 29375

the parts-marking 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, S.W., 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 April 9, 2001, Ford

requested an exemption from the parts

marking requirements of the Theft

Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541)

for the Mercury Grand Marquis vehicle

line beginning in MY 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 for the entire line.

Review of Ford’s petition disclosed

that certain information was not

provided in its original petition.

Consequently, by telephone call on

April 16, 2001, Ford was informed of its

areas of deficiency. Subsequently on

May 9, 2001, Ford submitted its

supplemental information addressing

these deficiencies. Ford’s April 9 and

May 9, 2001 submissions together

constitute 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, Ford provided a

detailed description and diagram of the

identity, design, and location of the

components of the antitheft device for

the line. Ford will install its antitheft

device, the SecuriLock Passive AntiTheft Electronic Engine Immobilizer

System (SecuriLock) as standard

equipment on the MY 2002 Mercury

Grand Marquis. The system has been

voluntarily installed as standard

equipment on its Mercury Grand

Marquis line since MY 2000.

In order to ensure the reliability and

durability of the device, Ford conducted

tests, based on its own specified

standards. Ford provided a detailed list

of the tests conducted and stated its

belief that the device is reliable and

durable since it complied with Ford’s

specified requirements for each test. The

environmental and functional tests

conducted were for thermal shock, high

temperature exposure, low-temperature

exposure, powered/thermal cycle,

temperature/humidity cycling, constant

humidity, end-of-line, functional,

random vibration, tri-temperature

parametric, bench drop, transmit

current, lead/lock strength/integrity,

output frequency, resistance to solvents,

output field strength, dust, and

electromagnetic compatibility. Ford

requested confidential treatment for

some of the information and

attachments submitted in support of its

petition. Ford’s request for confidential

treatment will be addressed by separate

notification.

The Ford SecuriLock is a transponderbased electronic immobilizer system.

The device is activated when the driver/

operator turns off the engine by using

the properly coded ignition key. When

the ignition key is turned to the start

position, the transceiver module reads

the ignition key code and transmits the

code to the powertrain’s electronic

control module (PCM). The vehicle’s

engine can only be started if the

transponder code matches the code

previously programmed into the

powertrain’s electronic control module.

If the code does not match, the engine

will be disabled.

Ford stated that there are seventy-two

quadrillion different codes and each

transponder is hard-coded with a

unique code at the time of vehicle

assembly. Additionally, Ford stated that

communication between the SecuriLock

transponder and the powertrain’s

electronic control module is encrypted

and share security data, making them a

matching pair. Consequently, the paired

modules will not function in other

vehicles if separated from each other.

Ford stated that its SecuriLock system

incorporates a theft indicator using a

light-emitting diode (LED) that provides

a visual indicator to the driver/operator

as to the ‘‘set’’ and ‘‘unset’’ condition of

the device. When the ignition is initially

turned to the ‘‘ON’’ position, a 3-second

continuous LED indicates that the

device is ‘‘unset.’’ When the ignition is

turned to ‘‘OFF,’’ a flashing LED

indicates the device is ‘‘set’’ and

provides visual information that the

vehicle is protected by the SecuriLock

system. Ford states that the integration

of the setting/unsetting device

(transponder) into the ignition key

assures activation of the device.

Ford believes that its new device is

reliable and durable because its does not

have any moving parts, nor does it

require a separate battery in the key. If

the correct code is not transmitted to the

electronic control module

(accomplished only by having the

correct key), there is no way to

mechanically override the system and

start the vehicle. Furthermore, Ford

stated that with the sophisticated design

and operation of the electronic engine

immobilizer system, conventional theft

methods are ineffective (i.e., hot-wiring

or attacking the ignition-lock cylinder).

Ford reemphasized that any attempt to

slam-pull the ignition-lock cylinder will

have no effect on a thief’s ability to start

the vehicle.

Ford stated that the effectiveness of its

SecuriLock device is best reflected in

the reduction of the theft rates for its

Mustang GT and Cobra models from MY

1995 to 1996. The SecuriLock antitheft

device was voluntarily installed on all

Mustang GT and Cobra models, and the

Taurus LX and SHO models as standard

equipment in MY 1996. In MY 1997, the

SecuriLock system was installed on the

entire Mustang vehicle line as standard

equipment. Ford notes that a

comparison of the National Crime

Information Center’s (NCIC) calendar

year (CY)1995 theft data for MY 1995

Mustang GT and Cobra vehicles without

an immobilizer device installed with

MY 1997 data for Mustang GT and

Cobra vehicles with an immobilizer

device installed, shows a reduction in

thefts of approximately 70% for the

vehicles with the immobilizer. With the

introduction of SecuriLock on all 2000

Taurus models, the NCIC data show a

63% drop in theft rate compared with

the non-SecuriLock equipped 1999

Taurus models.

As part of its submission, Ford also

provided a Highway Loss Data Institute

(HLDI) theft loss bulletin, Vol. 15, No.

1, September 1997, which evaluated

1996 Ford Mustang and Taurus models

fitted with the SecuriLock device and

corresponding 1995 models without the

SecuriLock device. The results as

reported by HLDI indicated a reduction

in overall theft losses by approximately

50% for both Mustang and Taurus

models.

Additionally, Ford stated that its

SecuriLock device has been

demonstrated to various insurance

companies, and as a result AAA

Michigan and State Farm now give an

antitheft discount for all Ford vehicles

equipped with the SecuriLock device.

Ford’s proposed device, as well as

other comparable devices that have

received full exemptions from the partsmarking requirements, lacks an audible

or visible alarm. Therefore, these

devices 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. However, theft data have

indicated a decline in theft rates for

vehicle lines that have been equipped

with antitheft devices similar to that

which Ford proposes. In these

instances, the agency has concluded

that the lack of a visual or audio alarm

has not prevented these antitheft

29376 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Notices

devices from being effective protection

against theft.

On the basis of comparison, Ford has

concluded that the antitheft device

proposed for its vehicle line is no less

effective than those devices in the lines

for which NHTSA has already granted

full exemptions from the parts-marking

requirements.

Based on the evidence submitted by

Ford, the agency believes that the

antitheft device for the Mercury Grand

Marquis vehicle line 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 (49 CFR part

541).

The agency believes that the device

will provide four of the five types of

performance listed in 49 CFR part

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 part 543.6(a)(4) and (5), the

agency finds that Ford has provided

adequate reasons for its belief that the

antitheft device will reduce and deter

theft. This conclusion is based on the

information Ford provided about its

antitheft device.

For the foregoing reasons, the agency

hereby grants in full Ford Motor

Company’s petition for an exemption for

the MY 2002 Mercury Grand Marquis

vehicle line from the parts-marking

requirements of 49 CFR part 541.

If Ford decides not to use the

exemption for this line, it must formally

notify the agency, and, thereafter, must

fully mark the line as required by 49

CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of

major component parts and replacement

parts).

NHTSA notes that if Ford 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. Part 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 that § 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: May 23, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–13553 Filed 5–29–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. RSPA–00–8026 (PDA–26(R))]

Application by Boston & Maine Corp.

for a Preemption Determination as to

Massachusetts’ Definitions of

Hazardous Materials

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice extending rebuttal period

for public comment.

SUMMARY: RSPA is extending the period

for interested parties to submit rebuttal

comments on an application by Boston

& Maine Corporation for an

administrative determination whether

Federal hazardous materials

transportation law preempts the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts’

definitions of ‘‘hazardous materials’’ as

applied to hazardous materials

transportation.

DATES: Rebuttal comments received on

or before June 12, 2001, will be

considered before an administrative

ruling is issued by RSPA’s Associate

Administrator for Hazardous Materials

Safety. Rebuttal comments may discuss

only those issues raised by comments

received during the initial comment

period and may not discuss new issues.

ADDRESSES: The application and all

comments received may be reviewed in

the Dockets Office, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001. The application and all

comments are also available on-line

through the home page of DOT’s Docket

Management System, at ‘‘http://

dms.dot.gov.’’

Comments must refer to Docket No.

RSPA–00–8026 and may be submitted

to the docket either in writing or

electronically. Send three copies of each

written comment to the Dockets Office

at the above address. If you wish to

receive confirmation of receipt of your

written comments, include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard. To submit

comments electronically, log onto the

Docket Management System website at

http://dms.dot.gov, and click on ‘‘Help

& Information’’ to obtain instructions.

A copy of each comment must also be

sent to (1) Robert B. Culliford, Esq.,

Corporate Counsel, Boston & Maine

Corporation, Iron Horse Park, North

Billerica, MA 01862, and (2) Ginny

Sinkel, Esq., Assistant Attorney General,

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office

of the Attorney General, One Ashburton

Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02108–

1698. A certification that a copy has

been sent to these persons must also be

included with the comment. (The

following format is suggested: ‘‘I certify

that copies of this comment have been

sent to Mr. Culliford and Ms. Sinkel at

the addresses specified in the Federal

Register.’’)

A list and subject matter index of

hazardous materials preemption cases,

including all inconsistency rulings and

preemption determinations issued, are

available through the home page of

RSPA’s Office of the Chief Counsel, at

‘‘http://rspa-atty.dot.gov.’’ A paper copy

of this list and index will be provided

at no cost upon request to Ms. Christian,

at the address and telephone number set

forth in ‘‘For Further Information

Contact’’ below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karin V. Christian, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Research and Special Programs

Administration (Tel. No. 202–366–

4400), Room 8407, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590–

0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 16, 2000, RSPA published a

notice in the Federal Register inviting

interested parties to submit comments

on an application by Boston & Maine

Corporation for an administrative

determination of whether Federal

hazardous materials transportation law

preempts the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts’ definitions of

‘‘hazardous materials’’ as applied to

hazardous materials transportation. See

65 FR 69365.

RSPA extended the period for

commenting on the preemption

determination application twice after

receiving two requests from the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Thus,

RSPA extended the comment period to

April 13, 2001, and the rebuttal

comment period to May 29, 2001.