33126 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2001 / Notices

Expand concourse C and apron

Extend taxiway U

Repair/replace storm drain system

runway 2/20

Fluid collection, treatment, and

recovery system

Refurbish existing concourse and

terminal

Decision Date: May 17, 2001.

For Further Information Contact:

Arthur Winder, Washington Airports

District Office, (703) 661–1363.

4. Public Agency: Bert Mooney

Airport Authority, Butte, Montana.

Application Number: 01–05–C–00–

BTM.

Application Type: Impose and use a

PFC.

PFC Level: $3.00.

Total PFC Revenue Approved in This

Decision: $185,280.

Earliest Charge Effective Date: August

1, 2004.

Estimated Charge Expiration Date:

January 1, 2006.

Class of Air Carriers Not Required To

Collect PFC’s: On-demand nonscheduled air taxi/commercial

operators.

Determination: Approved. Based on

information contained in the public

agency’s application, the FAA has

determined that the proposed class

accounts for less than 1 percent of the

total annual enplanements at Bert

Mooney Airport.

Brief Description of Projects Approved

for Collection and Use:

Acquire snow removal equipment

Install security fence segment

Acquire passenger access lift

Pavement condition index survey, phase

3

Rehabilitate a portion of taxiway C and

a portion of taxiway D

Install distance-to-go signs and runway

end identifier lights on runway 11/29

Brief Description of Project Approved

in Part for Collection and Use:

Airport vehicle radio replacement

program.

Determination: Partially approved. A

portion of this project is Airport

Improvement Program (AIP) eligible in

accordance with paragraph 560 of FAA

Order 5100.38A, AIP Handbook

(October 24, 1989). However, that

eligibility is limited to vehicles which

are AIP eligible, specifically aircraft

rescue and firefighting and snow

removal equipment vehicles. In addition

to the eligible vehicles, the public

agency proposed to install radios in

maintenance vehicles that are not AIP

eligible. Consequently, the installation

of radios in maintenance vehicles is not

PFC eligible.

Decision Date: May 22, 2001.

For Further Information Contact:

David P. Gabbert, Helena Airports

District Office, (406) 449–5271.

5. Public Agency: City and Bureau of

Juneau, Juneau, Alaska.

Application Number: 01–03–C–00–

JNU.

Application Type: Impose and use a

PFC.

PFC Level: $4.50.

Total PFC Revenue Approved in This

Decision: $310,551.

Earliest Charge Effective Date: August

1, 2001.

Estimated Charge Expiration Date

December 1, 2001.

Class of Air Carriers Not Required To

Collect PFC’s: None.

Brief Description of Projects Approved

for Collection and Use: Runway safety

area expansion, phase I. Runway safety

area Environmental Impact Statement.

Recovery of PFC administrative costs.

Terminal roof and exterior wall

rehabilitation. Acquire aircraft rescue

and firefighting vehicle. Acquire land

for noise compatibility within 65 daynight average sound level.

Decision Date: May 30, 2001.

For Further Information Contact:

Debbie Roth, Alaska Region Airports

Division, (907) 271–5443.

Amendments to PFC Approvals

Amendment No., city, state Amendment approved date

Original

approved net

PFC revenue

Amended approved net PFC

revenue

Original estimated charge

exp. date

Amended estimated charge

exp. date

96–02–C–01–BOI Boise, ID .......................... 05/04/01 $9,646,0900 $11,274,478 10/01/00 08/01/01

*98–01–C–01–KTN Ketchikan, AK ................ 05/11/01 6,419,400 6,644,400 02/01/18 04/01/18

*99–03–C–01–BOI Boise, ID ......................... 05/14/01 75,631,748 75,631,748 08/01/16 04/01/13

*96–01–C–01–MYR Myrtle Beach, SC ......... 05/29/01 13,819,500 13,819,500 07/01/05 05/01/03

*97–02–C–01–MYR Myrtle Beach, SC ......... 05/29/01 14,121,635 14,121,635 07/01/10 01/01/08

*97–01–C–01–DHN Dothan, AL .................... 05/30/01 5,515,948 5,515,948 12/01/28 12/01/20

96–02–C–01–OTH North Bend, OR ............. 05/31/01 68,731 96,916 04/01/99 12/01/99

*99–04–C–01–OTH North Bend, OR ............ 05/31/01 103,610 164,500 12/01/03 05/01/03

(Note: The amendment denoted by an asterisk(*) include a change to the PFC level charged from $3.00 per enplaned passenger to $4.50 per

enplaned passenger. For Ketchikan, AK, Boise, ID, Myrtle Beach, SC, Dothan, AL, and North Bend, OR, this change is effective on August 1,

2001.)

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 14,

2001.

Eric Gabler,

Manager, Passenger Facility Charge Branch.

[FR Doc. 01–15492 Filed 6–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

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 Pontiac Grand Prix,

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) 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Rosalind Proctor, Office of Planning and

Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 200

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2001 / Notices 33127

20590. Ms. Proctor’s telephone number

is (202) 366–0846. Her fax number is

(202) 493–2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a

petition dated February 22, 2001,

General Motors Corporation (GM),

requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft

Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541)

for the Pontiac Grand Prix vehicle line

beginning with MY 2003.

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 consulting 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 parts-marking

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

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 2003 Pontiac Grand Prix

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.

GM compared the PASS-Key III

device proposed for the Pontiac Grand

Prix line with its first generation PASSKey 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. The PASSKey III device utilizes a special ignition

key and decoder module. The

conventional mechanical key unlocks

and releases the transmission lever.

Before the vehicle can be operated, the

key’s electrical code must be sensed by

the key cylinder and properly decoded

by the decoder module.

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

decoder. When the decoder module

recognizes a valid key code, it sends a

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 stated that its PASS-Key III device

will provide protection against

unauthorized use of the vehicle. The

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. The PASS-Key III is

designed to be active at all times

without direct intervention by the

operator. Visible or audible reminders

beyond the key warning buzzer will not

be provided.

GM stated that the theft rates, as

reported by the National Crime

Information Center, are lower for GM

models equipped with PASS-Key

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 their 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

33128 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2001 / Notices

(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 two GM petitions for full

exemptions for four 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 44872, August 25,

1993), and the Chevrolet Lumina

(Lumina/Monte Carlo) and Buick Regal

car lines beginning with model year

1996, (see 60 FR 25938, May 15, 1995).

In 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.

NHTSA has also granted for four

petitions for modification of an

exemption in full for seven car lines

which have the ‘‘PASS-Key III’’ device

as standard equipment. Those lines are

the Buick Park Avenue (see 61 FR

25734, May 22, 1996) beginning with

the 1997 model year, the Cadillac

Seville (see 62 FR 20058, April 24,

1997) beginning with the 1998 model

year, the Cadillac DeVille, Pontiac

Bonneville, Buick LeSabre and

Oldsmobile Aurora (see 64 FR 29736,

June 2, 1999) and the Chevrolet Venture

(see 66 FR 24179, May 11, 2001)

beginning with the 2002 model year.

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

position. In a letter to GM dated March

22, 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 2003 Pontiac

Grand Prix 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

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 by 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: June 14, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–15493 Filed 6–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

June 12, 2001.

The Department of the Treasury has

submitted the following public

information collection requirement(s) to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Copies of the

submission(s) may be obtained by

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance

Officer listed. Comments regarding this

information collection should be

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed

and to the Treasury Department

Clearance Officer, Department of the

Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before July 20, 2001 to be

assured of consideration.

Departmental Offices/Office of

Financial Institutions Policy

OMB Number: 1505–0179.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Financial Subsidiaries (Interim

Final Rule).

Description: Pursuant to Section

5136A(b)(3) of the Revised Statutes, the

interim rule finds three general types of

activities to be financial in nature, and

creates a mechanism by which national

banks or others may request that the

Secretary define particular activities

within one of the three categories.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 20 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

100 hours.

OMB Number: 1505–0182.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Merchant Banking Investments.

Description: The rule requires

financial holding companies engaged in

merchant banking activities to have and

maintain certain policies, procedures,

records and systems to monitor and

manage such activities and the risks

associated with such activities in a safe

and sound manner.