5894 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 20 / Monday, February 2, 2009 / Notices 

The theft rate for MY 2004 Cadillac SRX 

is 0.7789. GM stated that the theft rates 

experienced by these lines with 

installation of the PASS-Key III+ device 

demonstrate the effectiveness of the 

device. The agency agrees that the 

device is substantially similar to devices 

for which the agency has previously 

approved exemptions. 

GM’s proposed device, as well as 

other comparable devices that have 

received full exemptions from the partsmarking requirements, lack an audible 

or visible alarm. Therefore, these 

devices cannot perform one of the 

functions listed in 49 CFR part 

543.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to 

unauthorized attempts to enter or move 

the vehicle. Based on comparison of the 

reduction in the theft rates of GM 

vehicles using a passive theft deterrent 

device with an audible/visible alarm 

system to the reduction in theft rates for 

GM vehicle models equipped with a 

passive antitheft device without an 

alarm, GM finds that the lack of an 

alarm or attention attracting device does 

not compromise the theft deterrent 

performance of a system such as PASSKey III+. In past petitions, the agency 

has concluded that the lack of a visual 

or audio alarm has not prevented these 

antitheft devices from being effective 

protection against theft. 

On the basis of this comparison, GM 

believes that the antitheft device (PASSKey III+) for model years 2010 and later 

will provide essentially the same 

functions and features as found on its 

MY 2005–2009 PASS-Key III device and 

therefore, its modified device will 

provide at least the same level of theft 

prevention as parts-marking. GM 

believes that the antitheft device 

proposed for installation on its MY 2010 

Buick LaCrosse is likely to be as 

effective in reducing thefts as 

compliance with the parts marking 

requirements of part 541. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of part 543.6, GM 

provided information on the reliability 

and durability of the proposed device. 

To ensure reliability and durability of 

the device, GM conducted tests based 

on its own specified standards. GM 

provided a detailed list of the tests 

conducted and believes that the device 

is reliable and durable since it complied 

with the specified requirements for each 

test. GM also stated that since the 

authorization code is not handled or 

contacted by the vehicle operator, the 

reliability of the PASS-Key III+ is 

significantly improved over the PASSKey and PASS-Key II devices. This 

reliability allows the system to return to 

the ‘‘Go/No Go’’ based system, 

eliminating the ‘‘fail enabled’’ mode of 

operation. 

The agency has evaluated GM’s MY 

2010 petition to modify the exemption 

for the Buick LaCrosse vehicle line from 

the parts-marking requirements of 49 

CFR part 541, and has decided to grant 

it. It has determined that the PASS-Key 

III+ system is likely to be as effective as 

parts-marking in preventing and 

deterring theft of these vehicles, and 

therefore qualifies for an exemption 

under 49 CFR part 543. The agency 

believes that the proposed device will 

continue to provide four of the five 

types of performance listed in 

§ 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. 

If GM decides not to use the 

exemption for this line, it should 

formally notify the agency. If such a 

decision is made, the line must be fully 

marked according to the requirements 

under 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 

(marking of major component parts and 

replacement parts). 

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: January 27, 2009. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E9–2106 Filed 1–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; 

Mitsubishi 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 Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America 

(Mitsubishi) petition for exemption of 

the Mitsubishi Lancer vehicle line in 

accordance with 49 CFR part 543, 

Exemption from the 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 (49 CFR part 

541). Mitsubishi requested confidential 

treatment for some of the information 

and attachments it submitted in support 

of its petition. The agency will address 

Mitsubishi’s request for confidential 

treatment by separate letter. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2010 model year. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carlita Ballard, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Ms. Ballard’s phone number is (202) 

366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493– 

2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated September 26, 2008, 

Mitsubishi requested exemption from 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 

541) for the Mitsubishi Lancer vehicle 

line beginning with MY 2010. The 

petition requested an exemption from 

parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR 543, 

Exemption from Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard, based on the 

installation of an antitheft device as 

standard equipment for the entire 

vehicle line. 

Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may 

petition NHTSA to grant an exemption 

for one vehicle line per model year. In 

its petition, Mitsubishi provided a 

detailed description and diagram of the 

identity, design, and location of the 

components of the antitheft device for 

the Lancer vehicle line. Mitsubishi will 

install a passive, transponder-based, 

electronic engine immobilizer device as 

standard equipment on its Lancer 

vehicle line beginning with MY 2010. 

Features of the antitheft device will 

include an electronic key, electronic 

control unit (ECU), and a passive 

immobilizer. Mitsubishi will also 

incorporate an alarm system as standard 

equipment on all Lancer models, except 

for the DE models, which will offer an 

optional alarm system. However, based 

on the declining theft rate experience of 

other vehicles equipped with devices 

that do not have an audio or visual 

alarm for which NHTSA has already 

exempted from the parts-marking 

requirements, the agency has concluded 

that the absence of a visual or audio 

alarm has not prevented these antitheft 

devices from being effective protection 

against theft. Mitsubishi’s submission is 

considered a complete petition as 

required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it 

meets the general requirements 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 20 / Monday, February 2, 2009 / Notices 5895 

contained in 543.5 and the specific 

content requirements of 543.6. 

Mitsubishi further explained that 

entry models for the Lancer vehicle line 

will be equipped with an immobilizer 

that functions via a Wireless Control 

Module (WCM). Mitsubishi stated that 

this is a keyless entry system in which 

the transponder is located in a 

traditional key that must be inserted 

into the key cylinder in order to activate 

the ignition. All other models of the 

Lancer vehicle line are equipped with 

an immobilizer that functions via a 

Keyless Operation System (KOS), which 

utilizes a keyless system that allows the 

driver to push a knob in the steering 

lock unit to activate the ignition (instead 

of using a traditional key in the key 

cylinder) as long as the transponder is 

located in close proximity to the driver 

inside the vehicle. Mitsubishi stated 

that the construction and performance 

of the immobilizer will be the same in 

all models whether the vehicle has a 

WCM or KOS entry system. Mitsubishi 

further stated that the only difference 

between the two keyless entry systems 

is the ‘‘key’’ and the method used to 

transmit the information from the key to 

the immobilizer. 

Specifically, once the ignition switch 

is turned to the ‘‘on’’ position, the 

transceiver module reads the specific 

ignition key code for the vehicle and 

transmits an encrypted message 

containing the key code to the electronic 

control unit (ECU). The immobilizer 

receives the key code signal transmitted 

from either type of key (WCM or KOS) 

and verifies that the key code signal is 

correct. The immobilizer then sends a 

separate encrypted start-code signal to 

the engine ECU to allow the driver to 

start the vehicle. The power train only 

will function if the key code matches 

the unique identification key code 

previously programmed into the ECU. If 

the codes do not match, the power train 

engine and fuel system will be disabled. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of 543.6, Mitsubishi 

provided information on the reliability 

and durability of its proposed device. 

To ensure reliability and durability of 

the device, Mitsubishi conducted tests 

based on its own specified standards. 

Mitsubishi provided a detailed list of 

the tests conducted and believes that the 

device is reliable and durable since the 

device complied with its specific 

requirements for each test. Mitsubishi 

additionally stated that its immobilizer 

system is further enhanced by several 

factors making it very difficult to defeat. 

Specifically, Mitsubishi stated that 

communication between the 

transponder and the ECU are encrypted 

and have trillions of different possible 

key codes that make successful key code 

duplication virtually impossible. 

Mitsubishi also stated that its 

immobilizer system and the ECU share 

security data during vehicle assembly 

that make them a matched set. These 

matched modules will not function if 

taken out and reinstalled separately on 

other vehicles. Mitsubishi also stated 

that it is impossible to mechanically 

override the system and start the vehicle 

because the vehicle will not be able to 

start without the transmission of the 

specific code to the electronic control 

module. Lastly, Mitsubishi stated that 

the antitheft device is extremely reliable 

and durable because there are no 

moving parts, nor does the key require 

a separate battery. 

Mitsubishi informed the agency that 

the Lancer vehicle line was first 

equipped with the proposed device 

beginning with its MY 2008 vehicles. 

Additionally, Mitsubishi informed the 

agency that its Eclipse vehicle line has 

been equipped with the device 

beginning with its MY 2000 vehicles. 

Mitsubishi stated that the theft rate for 

the MY 2000 Eclipse decreased by 

almost 42% when compared with that 

of its MY 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse 

(unequipped with an immobilizer 

device). Mitsubishi also revealed that 

the Galant and Endeavor vehicle lines 

have been equipped with a similar type 

of immobilizer device since January and 

April 2004 respectively. The Mitsubishi 

Galant and Endeavor vehicle lines were 

both granted parts-marking exemptions 

by the agency and the average theft rates 

using 3 MY’s data is 4.4173 and 2.9564 

respectively. Therefore, Mitsubishi 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 exemption from the parts-marking 

requirements. 

Based on the evidence submitted by 

Mitsubishi, the agency believes that the 

antitheft device for the Lancer vehicle 

line is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 

CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a 

petition for an exemption from the 

parts-marking requirements of part 541 

either in whole or in part, if it 

determines that, based upon substantial 

evidence, the standard equipment 

antitheft device is likely to be as 

effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of part 

541. The agency finds that Mitsubishi 

has provided adequate reasons for its 

belief that the antitheft device will 

reduce and deter theft. This conclusion 

is based on the information Mitsubishi 

provided about its device. 

The agency concludes that the device 

will provide four of the five types of 

performance listed in § 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. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full Mitsubishi’s 

petition for exemption for the Lancer 

vehicle line from the parts-marking 

requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The 

agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, 

Appendix A–1, identifies those lines 

that are exempted from the Theft 

Prevention Standard for a given model 

year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains 

publication requirements incident to the 

disposition of all part 543 petitions. 

Advanced listing, including the release 

of future product nameplates, the 

beginning model year for which the 

petition is granted and a general 

description of the antitheft device is 

necessary in order to notify law 

enforcement agencies of new vehicle 

lines exempted from the parts-marking 

requirements of the Theft Prevention 

Standard. 

If Mitsubishi 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 parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking 

of major component parts and 

replacement parts). 

NHTSA notes that if Mitsubishi 

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 part 

543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted 

vehicle manufacturers and itself. The 

agency did not intend 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 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
5896 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 20 / Monday, February 2, 2009 / Notices 

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: January 27, 2009. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E9–2107 Filed 1–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Ex Parte No. 664 (Sub-No. 1)] 

Use of a Multi-Stage Discontinued 

Cash Flow Model in Determining the 

Railroad Industry’s Cost of Capital 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Final Decision. 

SUMMARY: By a decision served on 

January 28, 2009, the Board modified its 

methodology for determining the cost of 

capital for the railroad industry by 

adopting the average of the estimates 

produced by its Capital Asset Pricing 

Model (CAPM) with the Morningstar/ 

Ibbotson multi-stage Discontinued Cash 

Flow (DCF) model to estimate the 

railroad industry’s cost of equity. 

DATES: This action is effective on 

January 28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Timothy J. Strafford, (202) 245–0356. 

[Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

1–800–877–8339.] 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board 

has been thoroughly reviewing its 

regulatory processes for determining the 

railroad industry’s cost of capital. The 

overall cost of capital is determined 

through the use of two figures: The cost 

of debt and the cost of equity. The cost 

of debt is readily available and 

observable; however, the cost of equity 

is not and must be estimated using a 

finance model. The Board determined in 

a decision served on January 28, 2009, 

the combination of finance models that 

it found best depicts the cost of equity, 

and thereby the cost of capital. In that 

decision, the Board revised its 

methodology for determining the cost of 

capital for the railroad industry by 

adopting the average of CAPM and the 

Morningstar/Ibbotson multi-stage DCF 

model. 

Additional information is contained 

in the Board’s decision. A copy of the 

Board’s decision is available for 

inspection or copying at the Board’s 

Public Docket Room, Room 131, 395 

E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423– 

0001, and is posted on the Board’s Web 

site, http://www.stb.dot.gov. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we 

conclude that our action in this 

proceeding will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This action 

will not significantly affect either the 

quality of the human environment or 

the conservation of energy resources. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10101(14); 49 U.S.C. 

10704(a)(2)–(3). 

Decided: January 23, 2009. 

By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice 

Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner 

Buttrey. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. E9–2185 Filed 1–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

Open Meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer 

Advocacy Panel (Including the States 

of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, 

Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin) 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 

4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 

conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 

Panel is soliciting public comment, 

ideas, and suggestions on improving 

customer service at the Internal Revenue 

Service. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

Tuesday, March 17, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Smiley at 1–888–912–1227, or 

(414) 231–2360. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given pursuant to Section 

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 

that a meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer 

Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, 

March 17, 2009, at 1 p.m. Central Time. 

For more information, please contact 

Ellen Smiley. Ms. Smiley may be 

reached at 1–888–912–1227, or (414) 

231–2360, or you can submit written 

comments to the panel by faxing the 

comments to (414) 231–2363, or by mail 

to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop 

1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, 

Milwaukee, WI 53203–2221, or you can 

post comments to the Web site at 

http://www.improveirs.org. 

The agenda will include the 

following: Various IRS issues. 

Dated: January 27, 2009. 

Shawn F. Collins, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

[FR Doc. E9–2101 Filed 1–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND 

SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION 

Notice of Open Public Hearing 

AGENCY: U.S.-China Economic and 

Security Review Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of open public hearing— 

March 4, 2009, Washington, DC. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

following hearing of the U.S.-China 

Economic and Security Review 

Commission. 

Name: Carolyn Bartholomew, 

Chairman of the U.S.-China Economic 

and Security Review Commission. 

The Commission is mandated by 

Congress to investigate, assess, and 

report to Congress annually on ‘‘the 

national security implications of the 

economic relationship between the 

United States and the People’s Republic 

of China.’’ 

Pursuant to this mandate, the 

Commission will hold a public hearing 

in Washington, DC on March 4, 2009 to 

address ‘‘China’s Military and Security 

Activities Abroad.’’ 

Background 

This event is the second in a series of 

public hearings the Commission will 

hold during its 2009 report cycle to 

collect input from leading academic, 

industry, and government experts on 

national security implications of the 

U.S. bilateral trade and economic 

relationship with China. The March 4 

hearing will examine the People’s 

Liberation Army’s domestic and foreign 

activities and orientation, China’s 

expanding military and security 

influence, China’s military operations 

abroad, and China’s conventional arm 

sales. 

The March 4 hearing will be Cochaired by Commission Chairman 

Carolyn Bartholomew and Vice 

Chairman Larry M. Wortzel. 

Information on hearings, as well as 

transcripts of past Commission hearings, 

can be obtained from the USCC Web site 

http://www.uscc.gov. 

Copies of the hearing agenda will be 

made available on the Commission’s 

Web site http://www.uscc.gov as soon as 

available. Any interested party may file 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES