Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 2445 

1On December 23, 2010, the Rollo Job 

Development Authority (RJDA) filed a letter in 

opposition. While the Board will not delay service 

and publication of this notice based on that letter 

alone, RJDA has a number of post-publication/ 

service options available to it, as set forth in this 

notice, should it choose to pursue the matter 

further. 

2BNSF states that the line was embargoed on 

March 29, 2007 due to soft track conditions and 

sub-grade issues and the subsequent destruction by 

fire of two bridges. 

retail vehicles, the overall theft rates 

have been decreasing and the theft rate 

for the Fusion vehicles have remained 

very close to the overall theft rate trend. 

Specifically, the agency’s data show that 

theft rates for the Fusion for MYs 2006– 

2008 are 1.7314, 1.8161 and 1.8797 

respectively. Using an average of 3 MYs 

data (2006–2008), the theft rate for the 

Fusion vehicle line is well below the 

median at 1.8090. 

Ford compared the effectiveness of its 

antitheft device with devices which 

NHTSA has previously determined to be 

as effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as would 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of Part 541. Specifically, 

Ford provided information on the 

reduction in the theft rate for other 

vehicle lines equipped with the 

‘‘SecuriLock’’ device. Ford’s 

‘‘SecuriLock’’ device was first 

introduced as standard equipment on 

it’s MY 1996 Mustang GT and Cobra 

vehicle lines. The ‘‘SecuriLock’’ system 

was installed on the entire Mustang 

vehicle line as standard equipment in 

MY 1997. Ford also stated that the 

‘‘SecuriLock’’ device has been installed 

as standard equipment on all North 

American Ford, Lincoln and Mercury 

vehicles except for the F–Super Duty, 

Econoline and Crown Victoria Police 

Interceptor vehicles. Ford stated that 

according to National Insurance Crime 

Bureau (NICB) theft statistics, the 1997 

model year Mustang with ‘‘SecuriLock’’ 

showed a 70% reduction in theft 

compared to its MY 1995 Mustang 

vehicles. Comparatively, Ford stated 

that there were 149 thefts reported in 

1997 and 500 thefts reported in 1995. 

Ford also stated that the proposed 

device is very similar in design and 

implementation to the device offered on 

the Ford Escape vehicle line. The 

agency granted Ford’s petition for 

exemption for the Escape vehicle line 

on April 18, 2008. Ford stated that it 

believes that the standard installation of 

the ‘‘SecuriLock’’ device on the Fusion 

vehicle line would be an effective 

deterrent against vehicle theft and that 

the low theft rate experienced by the 

line in CY 2008 is likely to continue or 

improve in future years. 

The agency agrees that the device is 

substantially similar to devices in other 

vehicle lines for which the agency has 

already granted exemptions. Based on 

the evidence submitted by Ford, the 

agency believes that the antitheft device 

for the Fusion 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). 

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

CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants a 

petition for exemption from the partsmarking 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 Ford has provided adequate 

reasons for its belief that the antitheft 

device for the Ford Fusion 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). This 

conclusion is based on the information 

Ford 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 Ford’s petition for 

exemption for the Fusion 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 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 partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. 

If Ford decides not to use the 

exemption for this line, it must 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 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, 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: January 7, 2011. 

Joseph S. Carra, 

Acting, Associate Administrator for 

Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2011–567 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket No. AB 6 (Sub-No. 473X)] 

BNSF Railway Company— 

Abandonment Exemption—in Rolette 

and Towner Counties, ND 

BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), filed 

a verified notice of exemption under 49 

C.F.R. pt. 1152 subpart F—Exempt 

Abandonments to abandon 17.75 miles 

of rail line between milepost 30.00, 

north of Bisbee and milepost 47.75 at 

Rolla, in Rolette and Towner Counties, 

N.D.1 The line traverses United States 

Postal Service Zip Codes 58317, 58363, 

and 58367. 

BNSF has certified that: (1) No local 

traffic has moved over the line for at 

least 2 years; 2 (2) there is no overhead 

traffic on the line; (3) no formal 

complaint filed by a user of rail service 

on the line (or by a state or local 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
2446 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 

3The Board will grant a stay if an informed 

decision on environmental issues (whether raised 

by a party or by the Board’s Office of Environmental 

Analysis (OEA) in its independent investigation) 

cannot be made before the exemption’s effective 

date. See Exemption of Out-of-Serv. Rail Lines, 5 

I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should 

be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may 

take appropriate action before the exemption’s 

effective date. 

4Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing 

fee, which is currently set at $1,500. See 49 CFR 

1002.2(f)(25). 

1Temple has also concurrently filed a motion for 

protective order pursuant to 49 CFR 1104.14(b) to 

allow Temple to file the unredacted Purchase and 

Sale Agreement under seal. That motion will be 

addressed in a separate decision. 

2City of Temple, Tex.—Acquisition and 

Operation Exemption—Georgetown R.R. Co., FD 

35369 (STB served Apr. 23, 2010) (April 23 notice). 

government entity acting on behalf of 

such user) regarding cessation of service 

over the line either is pending with the 

Surface Transportation Board (Board) or 

with any U.S. District Court or has been 

decided in favor of complainant within 

the 2-year period; and (4) the 

requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 

(environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.8 

(historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11 

(transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 

(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 

1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental 

agencies) have been met. 

As a condition to this exemption, any 

employee adversely affected by the 

abandonment shall be protected under 

Oregon Short Line Railroad— 

Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch 

Between Firth & Ammon, in Bingham & 

Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C. 

91 (1979). To address whether this 

condition adequately protects affected 

employees, a petition for partial 

revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

must be filed. 

Provided no formal expression of 

intent to file an offer of financial 

assistance (OFA) has been received, this 

exemption will be effective on February 

11, 2011, unless stayed pending 

reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do 

not involve environmental issues,3

formal expressions of intent to file an 

OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),4 and 

trail use/rail banking requests under 49 

CFR 1152.29 must be filed by January 

24, 2011. Petitions to reopen or requests 

for public use conditions under 49 CFR 

1152.28 must be filed by February 1, 

2011, with the Surface Transportation 

Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20423–0001. 

A copy of any petition filed with the 

Board should be sent to BNSF’s 

representative: Karl Morell, 1455 F St., 

NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005. 

If the verified notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. 

BNSF has filed a combined 

environmental and historic report 

which addresses the effects, if any, of 

the abandonment on the environment 

and historic resources. OEA will issue 

an environmental assessment (EA) by 

January 14, 2011. Interested persons 

may obtain a copy of the EA by writing 

to OEA (Room 1100, Surface 

Transportation Board, Washington, DC 

20423–0001) or by calling OEA, at (202) 

245–0305. Assistance for the hearing 

impaired is available through the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 1 800–877–8339. Comments on 

environmental and historic preservation 

matters must be filed within 15 days 

after the EA becomes available to the 

public. 

Environmental, historic preservation, 

public use, or trail use/rail banking 

conditions will be imposed, where 

appropriate, in a subsequent decision. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 

1152.29(e)(2), BNSF shall file a notice of 

consummation with the Board to signify 

that it has exercised the authority 

granted and fully abandoned the line. If 

consummation has not been effected by 

BNSF’s filing of a notice of 

consummation by January 12, 2012, and 

there are no legal or regulatory barriers 

to consummation, the authority to 

abandon will automatically expire. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at 

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’ 

Decided: January 10, 2011. 

By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Andrea Pope-Matheson, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2011–632 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket No. FD 35446] 

City of Temple, Tex.—Acquisition 

Exemption—Georgetown Railroad 

Company 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Notice instituting proceeding; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: On December 15, 2010, the 

City of Temple, Tex. (Temple), a 

noncarrier, filed a petition under 49 

U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the 

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10901 to acquire 

from the Georgetown Railroad Company 

(Georgetown) an approximately 6.277- 

mile line of railroad, between milepost 

0.0, near Belton, and milepost 6.277, at 

Smith, in Bell County, Tex. (the line), 

and the trackage rights granted to 

Georgetown to operate over the line.1 In 

a related transaction, Temple & Central 

Texas Railway, Inc. (TCTR), a Class III 

carrier, filed a verified notice of 

exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to 

operate over the line. That notice was 

served and published in the Federal 

Register on December 10, 2010 (75 FR 

77,044). Temple & Central Tex. Ry.— 

Operation Exemption—City of Temple, 

Tex., FD 35447 (STB served Dec. 10, 

2010). The Board seeks comments from 

interested persons on Temple’s request 

to acquire the line. 

DATES: Written comments must be filed 

with the Board by February 2, 2011. 

Replies must be filed by February 9, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted either via the Board’s e-filing 

format or in the traditional paper 

format. Any person using e-filing should 

attach a document and otherwise 

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: Docket No. FD 35446, 395 

E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423– 

0001. 

In addition, send one copy of any 

comments to Louis E. Gitomer, Law 

Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, 600 

Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, 

MD 21204. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia 

Farr at 202–245–0359. Assistance for the 

hearing impaired is available through 

the Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 15, 2010, Temple filed a 

petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for 

exemption from the provisions of 49 

U.S.C. 10901 to acquire the line. 

Previously Temple had filed a notice of 

exemption to acquire and operate over 

the line.2 Temple stated in that notice 

that the purpose of the acquisition was 

to construct a pipeline underneath the 

right-of-way and subsequently convert 

the line into a trail under the National 

Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. 1247(d). 

The Director of the Office of 

Proceedings stated in the April 23 

notice that the Board has found that 

acquiring a line for the purpose of 

abandoning rather than operating over it 

constitutes a misuse of Board 

procedures. Accordingly, Temple’s 

notice was rejected without prejudice. 

Subsequently, Temple entered into an 

agreement with TCTR, which operates 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES