25734 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–5821 or

fax 202–366–3889. Copies of this

collection can also be obtained from that

office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title of Collection: Trustee’s

Supplemental Certification.

Type of Request: Extension of

currently approved information

collection.

OMB Control Number: 2133–0015.

Form Number: MA–580.

Expiration Date of Approval: August

31, 1996.

Summary of Collection of

Information: Provide for approval of

banks and trust companies to act as

Trustees under certain ship financing

trusts and provide a procedure for

assuring the validity and preferred

status of mortgages on U.S. flag vessels

and certain mortgages requiring

Secretarial approval. The approved bank

or trust company is required to furnish

its supplemental certification every five

years in order to remain on the Roster

of Approved Trustees. The processing

fee for this application is $215.00 per

filing.

Need and Use of the Information:

Information collection provides

information that will be used by the

Maritime Administration to determine

whether the bank or trust company

continues to meet the statutory

requirements to serve as Trustees.

Description of Respondents: Banks

and trust companies.

Annual Responses: 68.

Annual Burden: 51 hours.

Comments: Send all comments

regarding this information collection to

Joel C. Richard, Department of

Transportation, Maritime

Administration, MAR–120, Room 7210,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20590. Send comments regarding

whether this information collection is

necessary for proper performance of the

function of the agency and will have

practical utility, accuracy of the burden

estimates, ways to minimize this

burden, and ways to enhance quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected.

By Order of the Maritime Administrator.

Dated: May 16, 1996.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–12798 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Petition for Modification of Exemption

From the Vehicle Theft Prevention

Standard; General Motors Corporation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for

modification of a previously approved

antitheft device.

SUMMARY: On April 9, 1991, this agency

granted in part General Motors

Corporation’s (GM) petition for

exemption from the parts-marking

requirements of the vehicle theft

prevention standard for the Buick Park

Avenue car line. This notice grants in

full GM’s petition for modification of

the previously approved antitheft device

for that line. The agency grants this

petition because it has determined,

based on substantial evidence, that the

modified antitheft device described in

GM’s petition to be placed on the car

line as standard equipment is likely to

be as effective in reducing and deterring

motor vehicle theft as compliance with

the parts-marking requirements.

DATES: The exemption granted by this

notice is effective beginning with model

year (MY) 1997.

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)366–1740. Her fax number is

(202) 493–2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In April

1991, NHTSA published in the Federal

Register a notice granting in part the

petition from General Motors

Corporation (GM) for an exemption from

the parts-marking requirements of the

Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part

541) for the model year 1992 Buick Park

Avenue car line. (See 56 FR 14413,

April 9, 1991). The agency determined

that the PASS-Key antitheft device,

which GM intended to install on the

Buick Park Avenue car line as standard

equipment, was likely to be as effective

in reducing and deterring motor vehicle

theft as would compliance with the

parts-marking requirements of the Theft

Prevention Standard. The agency

decided based on the information

available at that time that a full

exemption was not appropriate and

granted a partial exemption, which

required that the engine and

transmission on this line continue to be

marked. The agency limited the

exemption because the antitheft device

lacked both an audible and a visual

alarm to call attention to unauthorized

entry of the vehicle. The lack of such a

warning device made the agency

uncertain whether the device would be

as effective as parts marking in deterring

theft of this vehicle.

On February 16, 1996, GM submitted

its petition for modification to its

previously approved PASS-Key antitheft

device. The petition also asked that the

line be granted a full rather than partial

exemption. GM’s submittal is

considered a complete petition, as

required by 49 CFR Part 543.9(d), in that

it meets the general requirements

contained in § 543.5 and the specific

content requirements of § 543.6. GM

requested confidential treatment for

some of the information and

attachments submitted in support of its

petition for modification. In a letter to

GM dated March 1, 1996, the agency

granted the petitioner’s request for

confidential treatment.

In its petition for MY 1992, GM

included a detailed description of the

identity, design and location of the

components of the PASS-Key antitheft

device, including diagrams of

components and their location in the

vehicle. GM described the PASS-Key

antitheft device installed as standard

equipment as passively activated. The

PASS-Key antitheft device utilizes an

ignition key, an ignition lock cylinder

and a decoder module.

GM stated that for MY 1997, the

PASS-Key III antitheft device will

utilize more advanced technology than

the PASS-Key or PASS-Key II devices.

The PASS-Key III device will add new

features and refinements to some of the

previous PASS-Key/PASS-Key II

components. As with the PASS-Key and

PASS-Key II antitheft devices, the

PASS-Key III device will remain fully

functional once the ignition has been

turned off and the key has been

removed. No operator action will be

required other than removing the key.

The PASS-Key III will also use a special

ignition key and decoder module. The

conventional mechanical key unlocks

and releases the steering wheel and

transmission lever. However, 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.

GM stated that the transponder, now

embedded in the head of the key for the

PASS-Key III device, is stimulated 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 an

integral and unique code within the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices 25735

modulated signal. The PASS-Key III

device has the potential for four trillion

or more unique electrical key codes. The

key cylinder coil receives and sends the

modulated signal to the 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 PASSKey III decoder module will transmit a

different password to the PCM to

disable fuel flow and starter operation.

The PASS-Key II device was designed

to shut down for three to four minutes

if an invalid key was detected,

preventing further attempts at starting

the vehicle during that shutdown.

However, GM believes that the timeconsuming task of attempting to defeat

the device having over four trillion key

codes by a trial-and-error method

eliminates the need for such an

extensive shutdown period. Therefore,

with the PASS-Key III device, a shutdown period occurs only if someone is

attempting to program a new

electronically coded key. Shut-down

occurs for ten seconds with a valid key

and thirty minutes with a non-valid key.

As an additional security measure, GM

will provide the MY 1997 Buick Park

Avenue owner/operator with a ‘‘valet’’

version of the PASS-Key III ignition key

that will be modified to prevent the tensecond code-duplication possible with

the normal ignition key.

The PASS-Key III decoder module

and antenna will be located in the

steering column for MY 1997. GM stated

that the device cannot be defeated by

removing and then subsequently

reapplying vehicle power. Additionally,

GM stated that replacement of the

decoder module will not defeat the

device because of its decoder module

password.

Upon starting the vehicle, the ignition

switch will enable power to the PASSKey III device causing the decoder

module to illuminate a ‘‘security’’ light

on the instrument cluster. GM states

that this ‘‘bulb check’’ sequence will last

for five seconds and then the light will

return to the normal state (‘‘off’’) for a

valid key. Any attempts to start the

vehicle with an electronically invalid

key will cause the ‘‘security’’ light to

turn on. Should an error arise during

normal operation, the ‘‘security’’ light is

enabled, signaling to the operator that a

fault has been detected in the PASS-Key

III device. According to GM, the vehicle

will continue to operate despite the

fault, however, vehicle security may be

compromised.

GM stated that the PASS-Key III

device has been designed to enhance the

functionality and theft protection of the

first and second-generation PASS-Key

and PASS-Key II devices. However, as

in the first and second-generation PASSKey devices, the PASS-Key III device

does not provide an alarm, either

audible or visual to attract the attention

to the efforts of an unauthorized person

to enter or move the vehicle by means

other than a key (49 CFR

§ 543.6(a)(3)(ii).) To substantiate its

belief that an alarm system is not a

necessary feature to effectively deter the

theft of a vehicle, GM compared the

reduction in thefts for Corvettes

equipped with a passive antitheft device

with an audible/visible alarm feature

(24% reduction), and the Chevrolet

Camaro and Pontiac Firebird car lines

equipped with a passive antitheft device

without an alarm feature (66% and 69%

reduction).

The following GM car lines have the

‘‘PASS-Key’’ device as standard

equipment and have been exempted in

part from the requirements of 49 CFR

Part 541: the Chevrolet Camaro and

Pontiac Firebird, beginning with MY

1990 (See 54 FR 3365, August 15, 1989);

the Cadillac DeVille/Fleetwood and

Oldsmobile 98, beginning with MY 1991

(See 55 FR 17854, April 27, 1990); and

the Pontiac Bonneville and Buick Park

Avenue, beginning with MY 1992 (See

56 FR 14413, April 9, 1991). NHTSA has

also granted exemptions in part for the

following GM car lines that have PASSKey II as standard equipment: the

Oldsmobile 88 Royale and Buick

LeSabre, beginning with MY 1993 (See

57 FR 10517, March 26, 1992) and the

Cadillac Eldorado and Cadillac Seville,

beginning with MY 1994 (see 58 FR

11659, February 26, 1993).

The agency had granted partial, rather

than full exemptions for the car lines

listed above because neither the PASSKey nor PASS-Key II antitheft devices

included an audible or visual alarm

system. As such, the GM systems lack,

as standard equipment, an important

feature that the agency has defined in its

rulemaking on Part 543 as one of several

attributes which contribute to the

effectiveness of an antitheft device:

automatic activation of the device; an

audible or visual signal that is

connected to the hood, doors, and trunk,

and draws attention to vehicle

tampering; and a disabling mechanism

designed to prevent a thief from moving

a vehicle under its own power without

a key.

Since deciding those petitions,

however, the agency has become aware

that theft data show declining theft rates

for GM vehicles equipped with either

version of the PASS-Key device. A

comparison of theft data for car lines

incorporating the PASS-Key and PASSKey II devices does not show that the

lack of an audible or visual alarm

system detracts from the effectiveness of

the PASS-Key and PASS-Key II devices.

The agency believes that the data show

that over time, despite the absence of an

audible or visual alarm system, the

PASS-Key and PASS-Key II devices,

when placed on car lines as standard

equipment, are as likely to be as

effective in deterring and reducing

motor vehicle theft as compliance with

the parts-marking requirements.

Based on this information, the agency

has granted two GM petitions for full

exemptions for car lines equipped with

the PASS-Key II antitheft device. Those

lines are the Chevrolet Lumina and

Buick Regal car lines (See 60 FR 25938,

May 15, 1995) and the Buick Riviera

and Oldsmobile Aurora car lines (See 58

FR 44872, August 25, 1993). In both of

those instances, the agency concluded

that a full exemption was warranted

because the PASS-Key II device had

shown itself to be as likely as parts

marking to be effective protection

against theft despite the absence of a

visual or audible alarm. Because the

PASS-Key III device to be used in the

Buick Park Avenue beginning in MY

1997 is an improved version of these

systems, the agency concludes that a

full exemption is appropriate for this car

line as well.

To ensure reliability and durability of

the device, GM stated that it conducted

tests based on its own specified

standards. GM provided the test results

for the PASS-Key III device showing

that the device complied with the

specified performance requirements of

each test. GM stated that the PASS-Key

III device complied with it standards for

power temperature cycling, high and

low temperature storage, humidity, salt

fog, drop, dust, thermal shock, frost,

altitude, shock, random vibration and

potential contaminants.

To substantiate its beliefs as to the

effectiveness of the PASS-Key III

antitheft device, GM compared its MY

1997 antitheft modification to similar

devices that have previously been

granted exemptions by the agency. GM

provided data on the Chevrolet Camaro,

Pontiac Firebird, Cadillac DeVille/

Fleetwood, Cadillac Seville and Cadillac

Eldorado car line theft rates for MYs

1986 through 1991. PASS-Key was

made standard on the Camaro, Firebird,

Seville and Eldorado beginning with

MY 1989 and on the DeVille/ Fleetwood

beginning with MY 1990. The data

provided by GM were reported by the

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s

National Crime Information Center

(NCIC), which is NHTSA’s official

source of theft data (See 50 FR 46666,
25736 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices

November 12, 1985). The NCIC receives

reports on all thefts.

The NCIC data reported by GM

showed that the Camaro, Firebird,

DeVille/Fleetwood, Seville and

Eldorado theft rates (per thousand

vehicles) by Model Year were: For MY

1986, 29.49 for the Camaro, 27.83 for the

Firebird, 7.11 for the DeVille/

Fleetwood, 1.71 for the Seville and 2.27

for the Eldorado; for MY 1987, 26.03 for

the Camaro, 30.14 for the Firebird, 6.16

for the DeVille/Fleetwood, 9.24 for the

Seville and 3.90 for the Eldorado; for

MY 1988, 25.74 for the Camaro, 29.39

for the Firebird, 7.91 for the DeVille/

Fleetwood, 9.54 for the Seville and 3.16

for the Eldorado; for MY 1989, 8.69 for

the Camaro, 9.00 for the Firebird, 5.57

for the DeVille/Fleetwood, 8.31 for the

Seville and 2.35 for the Eldorado; for

MY 1990, 9.04 for the Camaro, 8.04 for

the Firebird, 3.85 for the DeVille/

Fleetwood, 9.43 for the Seville and 2.44

for the Eldorado; for MY 1991, 7.80 for

the Camaro, 6.37 for the Firebird, 4.06

for the DeVille/Fleetwood, 7.95 for the

Seville and 2.83 for the Eldorado.

GM believes that based on the

reduced theft rates of its PASS-Key and

PASS-Key II equipped car lines and the

proven theft-deterrence success of

transponder electronics security, the

PASS-Key III device to be introduced on

the MY 1997 Buick Park Avenue is

likely to be more effective in reducing

and deterring motor vehicle theft than

compliance with the parts marking

requirements of 49 CFR Part 541.

The agency believes that there is

substantial evidence indicating that the

modified antitheft device to be installed

as standard equipment on the MY 1997

Buick Park Avenue car line will likely

be as effective in reducing and deterring

motor vehicle theft as compliance with

the requirements of the Theft Prevention

Standard (49 CFR Part 541). This

determination is based on the

information that GM submitted with its

petition and on other available

information. The agency believes that

the modified device will continue to

provide the types of performance listed

in Section 543.6(a)(3): promoting

activation; attracting attention to

unauthorized entries; preventing defeat

or circumventing 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 CFR Section

543.6(a)(4), the agency also finds that

GM has provided adequate reasons for

its belief that the modified antitheft

device will reduce and deter theft. This

conclusion is based on the information

GM provided on its PASS-Key III

device. This information included a

description of reliability and functional

tests conducted by GM for the PASSKey III antitheft device and its

components.

For the foregoing reasons, the agency

hereby exempts the Buick Park Avenue

car line, which is the subject of this

notice, in whole, from the requirements

of 49 CFR Part 541.

Section 543.9(h)(2)(i), specifically

reads, ‘‘* * * an exemption under this

section takes effect on the first day of

the model year following the model year

in which NHTSA issued the

modification decision.’’ Therefore, since

the agency is issuing its decision on the

General Motors Corporation

modification during model year 1996,

the modification for the Buick Park

Avenue car line becomes effective

beginning with Model Year 1997.

If, in the future, GM decides not to

use the exemption for the car line that

is the subject of this notice, it should

formally notify the agency. If such a

decision is made, the car line must be

fully marked according to the

requirements under 49 CFR Section

541.5 and Section 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, it 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, Section

543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission

of petitions ‘‘(t)o 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 section

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 17, 1996.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–12842 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

Research and Special Programs

Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety;

Notice of Applications for Exemptions

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: List of applicants for

exemptions.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

procedures governing the application

for, and the processing of, exemptions

form the Department of Transportation’s

Hazardous Materials Regulations (49

CFR Part 107, Subpart B), notice is

hereby given that the Office of

Hazardous Materials Safety has received

the applications described herein. Each

mode of transportation for which a

particular exemption is requested is

indicated by a number in the ‘‘Nature of

Application’’ portion of the table below

as follow: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail

freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo

aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying

aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before (30 days after publication).

ADDRESS COMMENTS TO: Dockets Unit,

Research and Special Programs,

Administration, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.

Comments should refer to the

application number and be submitted in

triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of

comments is desired, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard showing

the exemption application number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Copies of the applications are available

for inspection in the Dockets Unit,

Room 8426, Nassif Building, 400 7th

Street, SW., Washington, DC.