Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices 28549 

to various electromagnetic radiation. 

Mazda stated that for reliability/ 

durability purposes, its key and key 

cylinders must also meet unique 

strength tests against attempts of 

mechanical overriding. The tests 

conducted were for thermal shock, high 

temperature exposure, low-temperature 

exposure, thermal cycle, humidity 

temperature cycling, functional, random 

vibration, dust, water, connector and 

lead/lock strength, chemical resistance, 

electromagnetic field, power line 

variations, DC stresses, electrostatic 

discharge, transceiver/key strength and 

transceiver mounting strength. Mazda 

also stated that its device is reliable and 

durable because it does not have any 

moving parts, nor does it require a 

separate battery in the key. Therefore, 

Mazda believes that any attempt to 

slam-pull the ignition lock cylinder will 

have no effect on a thief’s ability to start 

the vehicle, and if the correct code is 

not transmitted to the electronic control 

module there is no way to mechanically 

override the system and start the 

vehicle. Furthermore, Mazda stated that 

drive-away thefts are virtually 

eliminated with the sophisticated 

design and operation of the electronicengine immobilizer system which 

makes conventional theft methods (i.e., 

hot-wiring or attacking the ignition-lock 

cylinder) ineffective. 

Additionally, Mazda reported that in 

MY 1996, the proposed system was 

installed on certain U.S. Ford vehicles 

as standard equipment (i.e. on all Ford 

Mustang GT and Cobra models, Ford 

Taurus LX, SHO and Sable LS models). 

In MY 1997, the immobilizer system 

was installed on the Ford Mustang 

vehicle line as standard equipment. 

When comparing 1995 model year 

Mustang vehicle thefts (without 

immobilizer), with MY 1997 Mustang 

vehicle thefts (with immobilizer), data 

from the National Insurance Crime 

Bureau showed a 70% reduction in 

theft. (Actual NCIC reported thefts were 

500 for MY 1995 Mustang, and 149 

thefts for MY 1997 Mustang.) Mazda 

also provided additional data from the 

July 2000 Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety (IIHS) news release to 

support its belief in the reliability of its 

device. The IIHS news release showed 

an average theft reduction of about fifty 

percent for vehicles equipped with 

immobilizer systems. 

Mazda’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. However, theft data have 

indicated a decline in theft rates for 

vehicle lines that have been equipped 

with devices similar to that which 

Mazda proposes. In these instances, 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. 

Based on the evidence submitted by 

Mazda, the agency believes that the 

antitheft device for the Mazda 5 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 (49 CFR 541). 

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. 

As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 

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

agency finds that Mazda has provided 

adequate reasons for its belief that the 

antitheft device will reduce and deter 

theft. This conclusion is based on the 

information Mazda provided about its 

device. For the foregoing reasons, the 

agency hereby grants in full Mazda’s 

petition for exemption for its 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 Mazda 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 notes that if Mazda 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, part 

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 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 15, 2007. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E7–9666 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

Notice and Request for Comments 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to seek approval 

of existing collection: Waybill Sample 

SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq. (PRA), the Surface 

Transportation Board (STB or Board) 

gives notice of its intent to seek from the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) an approval for the currently 

existing collection of Waybill Sample 

data. This information collection is 

described in detail below. Comments 

are requested concerning: (1) The 

accuracy of the Board’s burden 

estimates; (2) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; (3) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, when 

appropriate; and (4) whether this 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
28550 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices 

1Pursuant to 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(2), the railroad 

must file a verified notice with the Surface 

Transportation Board (Board) at least 50 days before 

the abandonment or discontinuance is to be 

consummated. GTW initially indicated in its notice 

of exemption a proposed consummation date of 

functions of the Board, including 

whether the collection has practical 

utility. Submitted comments will be 

summarized and included in the 

Board’s request for OMB approval. 

Description of Collection 

Title: Waybill Sample. 

OMB Control Number: 2140–00. 

STB Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Approval of existing 

collection. 

Respondents: Any regulated railroad 

that terminated at least 4,500 carloads 

on its line in any of the three preceding 

years or that terminated at least 5% of 

the total revenue carloads that 

terminated in a particular state. 

Number of Respondents: 64. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 75 

minutes. 

Frequency: Five (5) respondents 

report Monthly; 59 report quarterly. 

Total Burden Hours (annually 

including all respondents): 370 hours. 

Total ‘‘Non-hour Burden’’ Cost: No 

‘‘non-hour cost’’ burdens associated 

with this collection have been 

identified. 

Needs and Uses: The Surface 

Transportation Board is, by statute, 

responsible for the economic regulation 

of common carrier rail transportation in 

the United States. Under 49 CFR part 

1244, a railroad is required to file 

carload waybill sample information 

(Waybill Sample) for all line-haul 

revenue waybills terminating on its 

lines if, in any of the three preceding 

years, it terminated 4500 or more 

carloads, or it terminated at least 5% of 

the total revenue carloads that terminate 

in a particular state. The information in 

the Waybill Sample is used by the 

Board, other Federal and state agencies, 

and industry stakeholders to monitor 

traffic flows and rate trends in the 

industry, and to develop testimony in 

Board proceedings. The Board has 

authority to collect this information 

under 49 U.S.C. 11144 and 11145. 

DATES: Comments on this information 

collection should be submitted by July 

20, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to 

Marilyn Levitt, Surface Transportation 

Board, Suite 1260, 395 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20423–0001, or to 

levittm@stb.dot.gov. When submitting 

comments, please refer to ‘‘Paperwork 

Reduction Comments: Waybill Sample.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO OBTAIN

A COPY OF PERTINENT REGULATIONS

CONTACT: Mac Frampton at (202) 245–

0317 or at hugh.frampton@stb.dot.gov. 

[Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

1–800–877–8339.] These regulations are 

codified at 49 CFR parts 1244.1–1244.9 

and are also available on the web 

through http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/ 

index.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

PRA, a Federal agency conducting or 

sponsoring a collection of information 

must display a currently valid OMB 

control number. A collection of 

information, which is defined in 44 

U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), 

includes agency requirements that 

persons submit reports, keep records, or 

provide information to the agency, third 

parties, or the public. Under section 

3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, Federal 

agencies are required to provide public 

notice and a 60-day comment period, 

prior to seeking OMB approval for an 

information collection. 

Dated: May 21, 2007. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–9689 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Ex Parte No. 558 (Sub-No. 10)] 

Railroad Cost of Capital—2006 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Notice of decision. 

SUMMARY: The Board is instituting a 

proceeding to determine the railroad 

industry’s cost of capital for 2006. The 

decision solicits comments on: (1) The 

railroads’ 2006 current cost of debt 

capital; (2) the railroads’ 2006 current 

cost of preferred stock equity capital (if 

any); (3) the railroads’ 2006 cost of 

common stock equity capital; and (4) 

the 2006 capital structure mix of the 

railroad industry on a market value 

basis. 

DATES: Notices of intent to participate 

are due no later than May 29, 2007. 

Statements of the railroads are due by 

June 25, 2007. Statements of other 

interested persons are due by July 25, 

2007. Rebuttal statements by the 

railroads are due by August 9, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Railroads and others that 

intend to participate in this proceeding 

shall file an original and one copy of a 

notice of intent to participate with the 

Secretary by the date specified below. 

Evidentiary statements are to be filed 

with the Board on or before the dates set 

forth above. Comments may be 

submitted either via the Board’s e-filing 

format or in the traditional paper 

format. Any person using e-filing should 

comply with the instructions at the 

E-FILING link on the Board’s Web site, 

at http://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person 

submitting a filing in the traditional 

paper format should send an original 

and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation 

Board, Attn: STB Ex Parte No. 558 (SubNo. 10), 395 E Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20423–0001. In addition, the 

evidence contained in the statement 

shall be submitted on a 3.5-inch disk in 

MS Word 2003 or its equivalent. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Decker, (202) 245–0330. (Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the 

hearing impaired: 1 (800) 877–8339.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Board’s decision is posted on the 

Board’s website, www.stb.dot.gov. In 

addition, copies of the decision may be 

purchased from ASAP Document 

Solutions by calling 202–306–4004 

(assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through FIRS at 1–800–877–

8339), or by e-mail at 

asapdc@verizon.net. 

We preliminarily conclude that the 

proposed action will not significantly 

affect either the quality of the human 

environment or the conservation of 

energy resources. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10704(a). 

Decided: May 14, 2007. 

By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice 

Chairman Buttrey, and Commissioner 

Mulvey. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–9690 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. AB–31 (Sub-No. 41X)] 

Grand Trunk Western Railroad 

Incorporated—Abandonment 

Exemption—in Oakland County, MI 

Grand Trunk Western Railroad 

Incorporated (GTW) has filed a notice of 

exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart 

F—Exempt Abandonments to abandon a 

0.7-mile portion of its line of railroad 

known as the Cass City Subdivision 

from milepost 7.06 to milepost 6.36 in 

Orion Township, in Oakland County, 

MI.1 The line traverses United States 

Postal Service Zip Code 48359. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES