40634 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Notices 

1See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000). 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0152] 

Think Technology AS; Grant of 

Application for a Temporary 

Exemption From the Advanced Air Bag 

Requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard No. 208 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for temporary 

exemption from certain advanced air 

bag requirements of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. 

SUMMARY: This document grants the 

Think Technology AS (Think) 

application for a temporary exemption 

from certain advanced air bag 

requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection. The 

exemption applies to the Think City EV 

vehicle line. In accordance with 49 CFR 

Part 555, the basis for the grant is that 

the exemption would make the 

development or field evaluation of a 

low-emission vehicle easier and would 

not unreasonably lower the safety or 

impact protection level of that vehicle. 

The exemption is effective from 

February 1, 2010 through January 31, 

2012. 

NHTSA published a notice of receipt 

of the application on September 16, 

2008 and afforded an opportunity for 

public comment. 

DATES: The exemption is effective 

February 1, 2010 through January 31, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ari 

Scott, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC– 

112, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building 4th Floor, 

Room W41–326, Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: (202) 366–2992; Fax: (202) 

366–3820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Advanced Air Bag Requirements 

II. Overview of Think’s Petition for Low 

Emission Vehicle Exemption 

III. Background of Manufacturer 

IV. Statutory Basis for Requested Part 555 

Exemption 

V. Think’s Petition 

VI. Notice of Receipt 

VII. Final Decision 

I. Advanced Air Bag Requirements 

In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the 

requirements for air bags in passenger 

cars and light trucks, requiring what are 

commonly known as ‘‘advanced air 

bags.’’ 1 The upgrade was designed to 

meet the goals of improving protection 

for occupants of all sizes, belted and 

unbelted, in moderate-to-high-speed 

crashes, and of minimizing the risks 

posed by air bags to infants, children, 

and other occupants, especially in lowspeed crashes. 

The advanced air bag requirements 

were a culmination of a comprehensive 

plan that the agency announced in 1996 

to address the adverse effects of air bags. 

This plan also included an extensive 

consumer education program to 

encourage the placement of children in 

rear seats. The new requirements were 

phased in beginning with the 2004 

model year. 

The agency has carefully tracked 

occupant fatalities resulting from air bag 

deployment. Our data indicate that the 

agency’s efforts in the area of consumer 

education and manufacturers’ providing 

depowered air bags were successful in 

reducing air bag fatalities even before 

advanced air bag requirements were 

implemented. 

As always, we are concerned about 

the potential safety implication of any 

temporary exemption granted by this 

agency. In the present case, we are 

addressing a petition for a temporary 

exemption from the advanced air bag 

requirements submitted by a 

manufacturer of a small electricpowered car. 

II. Overview of Think’s Petition for 

Low-Emission Vehicle Exemption 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 

and the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, 

Think has petitioned the agency for a 

temporary exemption from certain 

advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208. The basis for the 

application is that the exemption would 

make the development or field 

evaluation of a low-emission vehicle 

easier and would not unreasonably 

lower the safety or impact protection 

level of the vehicle. Think requested the 

exemption for a period of two years. The 

petitioner stated that the vehicle will be 

equipped with standard air bags. 

III. Background of Manufacturer 

The Think City EV is a two-seat 

hatchback vehicle that originally began 

as a project started in 1998 by PIVCO 

AS in Norway. According to the 

petitioner, in 2000, the PIVCO project 

was acquired by Ford Motor Company, 

a major U.S. automobile manufacturer, 

as part of an effort to comply with the 

State of California’s Zero Emissions 

Vehicle mandate. Ford created a project 

called Think, which produced 350 

Think City EV cars based on the PIVCO 

project in 2000, which were leased as 

part of a demonstration and testing 

project. However, in light of the 

California Air Resources Board’s 

decision in 2003 to essentially end the 

requirement for ‘‘pure’’ electric cars, 

Ford sold the Think project to 

KamKorp, a company based in 

Switzerland. In 2006, a new ownership 

occurred creating Think Global AS. 

Think Technology AS is a whollyowned subsidiary of Think Global AS, 

a holding company that possesses the 

intellectual property rights to the Think 

City EV. The current owners of Think 

Global AS include the founders of the 

PIVCO project, the precursor to the 

Think City EV, as well as various other 

entities in Norway and other countries. 

Neither Think Global AS nor Think 

Technology AS (hereinafter, ‘‘Think’’) 

has sold any vehicles in the U.S. to date. 

IV. Statutory Basis for Requested Part 

555 Exemption 

The National Traffic and Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act, codified as 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301, provides the Secretary of 

Transportation authority to exempt, on 

a temporary basis and under specified 

circumstances, motor vehicles from a 

motor vehicle safety standard or bumper 

standard. This authority is set forth at 

49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has 

delegated the authority for this section 

to NHTSA. 

NHTSA established Part 555, 

Temporary Exemption from Motor 

Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, 

to implement the statutory provisions 

concerning temporary exemptions. 

Vehicle manufacturers may apply for 

temporary exemptions on several bases, 

one of which is that the exemption 

would make the development or field 

evaluation of a low-emission motor 

vehicle easier and would not 

unreasonably lower the safety level of 

the vehicle. 

A petitioner must provide specified 

information in submitting a petition for 

exemption. These requirements are 

specified in 49 CFR 555.5, and include 

a number of items. Foremost among 

them are that the petitioner must set 

forth the basis of the application under 

§ 555.6, and the reasons why the 

exemption would be in the public 

interest and consistent with the 

objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. 

To be considered, a petition 

submitted on the basis that the 

exemption would make the 

development or field evaluation of a 

low-emission motor vehicle easier and 

would not unreasonably lower the 

safety level of the vehicle must include 

specified information set forth at 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Notices 40635 

2 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1). 

§ 555.6(c). The main requirements of 

this section include: (1) Substantiation 

that the vehicle is a low-emission 

vehicle; (2) documentation establishing 

that a temporary exemption would not 

unreasonably degrade the safety of the 

vehicle; (3) substantiation that a 

temporary exemption would facilitate 

the development or field evaluation of 

the vehicle; (4) a statement of whether 

the petitioner intends to conform to the 

standard at the end of the exemption 

period; and (5) a statement that not 

more than 2,500 exempted vehicles will 

be sold in the United States in any 12- 

month period for which an exemption 

may be granted. 

NHTSA notes that while 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b) states that exemptions from a 

Safety Act standard are to be granted on 

a ‘‘temporary basis,’’ 2 the statute also 

provides that an exemption may be 

renewed on reapplication. 

Manufacturers are nevertheless 

cautioned that the agency’s decision to 

grant an initial petition in no way 

predetermines that the agency will grant 

renewal petitions, thereby potentially 

imparting semi-permanent exemption 

from a safety standard. Exempted 

manufacturers contemplating seeking 

renewal should bear in mind that the 

agency is directed to consider not only 

whether an exemption would make the 

development or field evaluation of a 

low-emission motor vehicle easier but 

other factors such as whether an 

exemption is in the public interest and 

consistent with the Safety Act generally. 

V. Think’s Petition 

As indicated above, Think has 

petitioned the agency for a temporary 

exemption from certain advanced air 

bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. 

Think requested an exemption for a 

period of two years upon the grant of 

the petition, although in a subsequent 

communication it requested that the 

starting date for that period be delayed 

until February 1, 2010. 

The requested exemption includes the 

advanced air bag requirements in 

S14.5.2 of FMVSS No. 208, the rigid 

barrier test requirement using the 5th 

percentile adult female test dummy 

(belted and unbelted, S15), the offset 

deformable barrier test requirement 

using the 5th percentile adult female 

test dummy (S17), the requirements to 

provide protection for infants and 

children (S19, S21, and S23) and the 

requirement using an out-of-position 5th 

percentile adult female test dummy at 

the driver position (S25). 

The basis for the petition was that the 

exemption would facilitate the 

development of a low-emission vehicle 

and would not unreasonably lower the 

safety or impact protection level of the 

vehicle. Think asserted that the Think 

City EV emits zero pollutants, would 

not unreasonably degrade safety, has 

substantial public interest value, and 

that the exemption is necessary to 

facilitate the development. The 

following is a brief summary of the 

salient points of Think’s petition, and 

more complete information can be 

found by examining the notice of receipt 

or the petition itself, available in the 

NHTSA docket (NHTSA–2008–0152). 

Think asserts that the Think City EV 

is a low-emission vehicle. It states that 

49 U.S.C. 30113(a) defines a lowemission vehicle as one that conforms to 

the applicable standards for new 

vehicles contained in section 202 of the 

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521), and 

whose emissions are significantly below 

one of those standards. Section 202 of 

the Clear Air Act currently controls 

hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides 

of nitrogen, and particulate matter. 

Think asserts that the Think City EV 

emits none of the listed pollutants. It 

also asserts that the vehicle has no 

additional systems installed that could 

produce the named pollutants, e.g., a 

fuel-fired heating system. 

Think also stated that the requested 

exemption would not unreasonably 

degrade the safety of the Think City EV. 

While it is requesting an exemption 

from the advanced air bag requirements, 

the Think City EV is not without air 

bags. Think states that the Think City 

EV will comply with the pre-advanced 

air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. 

As stated in the petition, the only 

differences between a compliant vehicle 

and the Think City EV are the test 

requirements discussed above in the 

requested exemption. 

Additionally, Think cited several 

safety features of the Think City EV that 

will help to prevent injuries. The 

petitioner stated that the vehicle was 

designed, engineered and tested by Ford 

to meet all applicable NHTSA 

requirements for the 2003 model year. It 

stated further that the Think City EV 

will: (1) Meet the new belted test 

requirements of S14.5.1(a), which 

imposes more stringent limits for head 

injury criteria, chest deflection, and 

neck injury than the old version to 

which the vehicle was originally 

designed; (2) meet the criteria for injury 

prevention under S13, with regard to 

the unbelted sled test; (3) have FMVSS 

No. 209 and 210 compliant belts and 

anchorages, together with pretensioners 

and load limiters; (4) have a passenger 

air bag on-off switch permitted by 

FMVSS No. 208; and (5) meet all other 

requirements of the FMVSSs. Given 

these features, the petitioner argues that 

the Think City EV will not unreasonably 

degrade safety or impact protection, and 

that the risk to safety is de minimis. 

Think states that the temporary 

exemption it seeks would facilitate the 

evaluation and development of the 

Think City EV. The petitioner claims 

that it currently does not have the 

ability to design or acquire an air bag 

system that meets the advanced air bag 

requirements of Standard No. 208. 

While the Think City EV’s air bag 

system is a dual stage system, it is 

currently designed with a fixed phase 

delay as Think does not yet have 

hardware, such as seat position sensing, 

that can be utilized to meet all of the 

advanced air bag requirements. Think 

also asserts that off-the-shelf systems 

that meet the requirements are not 

currently available, and that the 

sourcing of a custom-designed system is 

not straightforward or financially viable 

at this time. According to that company, 

the requested exemption would 

facilitate the development of the Think 

City EV by allowing Think to enter the 

U.S. market, a key target market for the 

vehicle at issue. Think states that this 

would enable the company to evaluate 

the vehicle, and based on this 

evaluation, continue development, 

including successive models. 

Specifically, Think claims that the 

requested two year exemption would 

permit: 

• Evaluation and further development 

of alternative battery concepts; 

• Evaluation and further development 

of vehicle systems based on real-world 

usage under U.S.-specific driving and 

storage conditions; 

• Product evaluation through U.S. 

warranty analysis and customer 

feedback; 

• Further evaluation of the company’s 

plan to establish a U.S. manufacturing 

operation; and 

• Development of a compliant 

advanced air bag system. 

Think stated that at the end of the 

exemption period, it intends to conform 

with all advanced air bag requirements. 

Finally, Think set forth reasons why 

the granting of the petition would be in 

the public interest and consistent with 

the objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. 

Think believes that the Think City EV 

is a major step forward in transportation 

that will benefit the environment, and 

that granting the exemption will protect 

U.S. consumer choice. According to the 

petitioner, battery electric vehicles like 

the Think City EV can reduce 

dependence on oil and are more energy 

efficient compared to Internal 

Combustion Engine powered cars. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
40636 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Notices 

Think also asserted that battery 

recharging costs are more predictable 

than gasoline prices, and not as subject 

to volatile international incidents. 

VI. Notice of Receipt 

On September 16, 2008, we published 

in the Federal Register (73 FR 54660) a 

notice announcing receipt of an 

application from Think Technology AS 

for a temporary exemption from the 

advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208 for the Think City EV. 

We invited public comment on Think’s 

application. The only comment we 

received was from Think, indicating 

that due to a delay in its production 

schedule, it was requesting that the 

exemption begin on November 1, 2009. 

In a subsequent e-mail, Think requested 

that the commencement of the 

exemption be further delayed until 

February 1, 2010. 

VII. Final Decision 

The following discussion provides 

our decision regarding Think’s 

temporary exemption request pertaining 

to the advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208. 

We are granting Think’s petition for 

the Think City EV to be exempted from 

the following portions of the advanced 

air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208: 

S14.5.2, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and 

S25. The exemption is for a two year 

period. The agency’s rationale for this 

decision is as follows. 

First, we believe it is manifestly in the 

public interest to accelerate the 

development of electrically driven 

vehicles. Electric vehicles can help 

reduce the reliance of the nation on oil, 

and reduce greenhouse gas and other 

emissions. Moreover, development of 

electric vehicles contributes to the 

expansion of consumer choices. 

NHTSA further agrees that the 

requested exemption would make the 

development or field evaluation of a 

low-emission vehicle easier. Think has 

stated that there are a number of 

concepts that need evaluation and 

further development at this time. There 

are, at this time, very few other fully 

battery-operated vehicles available in 

the U.S. Think stated that substantial 

further evaluation of the market and 

available technologies is needed to 

further the development of these types 

of vehicles. 

Think explained that the exemption 

would, among other things, permit 

evaluation and further development of 

alternative battery concepts, evaluation 

and further development of vehicle 

systems based on real-world usage 

under U.S.-specific driving and storage 

conditions, and product evaluation 

through U.S. warranty analysis and 

customer feedback. We agree that the 

exemption would permit that company 

to engage in these activities, and thereby 

make the development or field 

evaluation of a low-emissions vehicle 

easier. 

NHTSA also concludes that granting 

this exemption would not unreasonably 

lower the safety or impact protection 

level of the vehicle. Of particular note, 

the Think City EV will have air bags and 

will be certified to meet the preadvanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208. Moreover, with 

exception of the advanced air bag 

requirements, it will be required to be 

certified to meet all other requirements 

contained in the applicable FMVSSs. 

Furthermore, while the Think City EV 

lacks an advanced air bag that meets the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208, it does 

employ a two-stage air bag that uses a 

fixed delay. The Think City EV is also 

equipped with an air bag on-off switch, 

which can be used to turn off the front 

passenger air bag when children are 

seated in the right front passenger seat. 

Additionally, Think stated in its 

petition that while it is requesting an 

exemption from the requirements of 

S14.5.2, with regard to the unbelted 

tests, the Think City EV will meet the 

50th percentile adult male dummy sled 

test requirements in S13, as well as the 

injury criteria in S6.1, S6.2(b), S6.3, 

S6.4(b), S6.5, and S6.6 (the criteria 

specified in S14.5.2). 

We also observe that only a limited 

number of vehicles would be produced 

under the requested exemption. 

Manufacturers granted exemptions on 

the basis of furthering the development 

of low-emission vehicles are limited to 

selling 2,500 exempted vehicles in any 

12-month period. Given that this is a 

two-year exemption, no more than 5,000 

vehicles could be built that lack the 

advanced air bag protection of FMVSS 

No. 208. In its petition, Think stated 

that it projected selling 500 vehicles 

during the first year of the requested 

exemption and 2,500 vehicles during 

the second year. 

Based on the above discussion 

concerning safety, we believe that any 

impact on safety from granting the 

requested exemption would be 

negligible. 

We note that, as explained below, 

prospective purchasers will be notified 

that the vehicle is exempted from the 

specified advanced air bag requirements 

of Standard No. 208. Under § 555.9(b), 

a manufacturer of an exempted 

passenger car must affix securely to the 

windshield or side window of each 

exempted vehicle a label containing a 

statement that the vehicle conforms to 

all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the 

date of manufacture ‘‘except for 

Standard Nos. [listing the standards by 

number and title for which an 

exemption has been granted] exempted 

pursuant to NHTSA Exemption No. l.’’ 

This label notifies prospective 

purchasers about the exemption and its 

subject. Under § 555.9(c), this 

information must also be included on 

the vehicle’s certification label. The text 

of § 555.9 does not expressly indicate 

how the required statement on the two 

labels should read in situations where 

an exemption covers part but not all of 

a FMVSS. 

In this case, we believe that a 

statement that the vehicle has been 

exempted from Standard No. 208 

generally, without an indication that the 

exemption is limited to the specified 

advanced air bag provisions, could be 

misleading. A consumer might 

incorrectly believe that the vehicle has 

been exempted from all of Standard No. 

208’s requirements. Moreover, we 

believe that the addition of a reference 

to such provisions by number without 

an indication of its subject matter would 

be of little use to consumers, since they 

would not know the subject of those 

specific provisions. For these reasons, 

we believe the two labels should read in 

relevant part, ‘‘except for S14.5.2, S15, 

S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 (Advanced 

Air Bag Requirements) of Standard No. 

208, Occupant Crash Protection, 

exempted pursuant to * * *.’’ We note 

that the phrase ‘‘Advanced Air Bag 

Requirements’’ is an abbreviated form of 

the title of S14 of Standard No. 208. We 

believe it is reasonable to interpret 

§ 555.9 as requiring this language. 

In consideration of the foregoing, we 

conclude that granting the requested 

exemption from the advanced air bag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection, would 

facilitate the field evaluation and 

development of a low-emission vehicle, 

and would not unreasonably lower the 

safety or impact protection level of that 

vehicle. We further conclude that 

granting of an exemption would be in 

the public interest and consistent with 

the objectives of traffic safety. 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(3)(B)(iii), Think Technology 

AS is granted NHTSA Temporary 

Exemption No. EX 09–02, from S14.5.2, 

S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of 

FMVSS No. 208. The exemption is for 

the Think City electric vehicle and shall 

run from February 1, 2010 until January 

31, 2012 as indicated in the DATES

section of this notice. The exemption 

may not be used for more than 2,500 

vehicles to be sold in the United States 

in any 12-month period. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Notices 40637 

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8) 

Issued on: July 30, 2009. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Acting Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–19380 Filed 8–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Notice of Application for Approval of 

Discontinuance or Modification of a 

Railroad Signal System or Relief From 

the Requirements of Title 49 Code of 

Federal Regulations Part 236 

Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49 

U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad 

has petitioned the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) seeking approval 

for the discontinuance or modification 

of the signal system or relief from the 

requirements of 49 CFR part 236, as 

detailed below. 

[Docket Number FRA–2009–0069] 

Applicant: Norfolk Southern 

Corporation, Mr. B. T. Fennell, Division 

Superintendent, Harrisburg Division, 

4600 Deer Path Road, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania 17111. 

The Norfolk Southern Corporation 

(NS) requests a waiver from the 

requirements of 49 CFR 236.566; 

Locomotive of each train operating in 

train stop, train control, or cab signal 

territory; equipped. 

The request is to permit NS to use 

non-equipped, remote-controlled 

locomotives to operate as controlling 

units on the NS Morrisville Line, in 

261–CSS territory, between CP–MA, 

Milepost (MP) MV 4.7 and CP–Lang, MP 

MV 6.3. 

The reason given for the proposed 

waiver is to provide head room out of 

the Morrisville Yard for remotely 

operated non-equipped locomotives 

onto the Main Track and Signaled 

Siding for switching operations. It is 

limited to switching movements West of 

CP–MA into equipped territory and 

reversing back into Morrisville Yard. 

Any interested party desiring to 

protest the granting of an application 

shall set forth specifically the grounds 

upon which the protest is made, and 

include a concise statement of the 

interest of the party in the proceeding. 

Additionally, one copy of the protest 

shall be furnished to the applicant at the 

address listed above. 

FRA expects to be able to determine 

these matters without an oral hearing. 

However, if a specific request for an oral 

hearing is accompanied by a showing 

that the party is unable to adequately 

present his or her position by written 

statements, an application may be set 

for public hearing. 

All communications concerning this 

proceeding should be identified by 

Docket Number FRA–2009–0069 and 

may be submitted by one of the 

following methods: 

• Web site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the DOT electronic site; 

• Fax: 202–493–2251; 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590; or 

• Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 of 

the U.S. Department of Transportation 

West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Communications received within 45 

days of the date of this notice will be 

considered by FRA before final action is 

taken. Comments received after that 

date will be considered as far as 

practicable. All written communications 

concerning these proceedings are 

available for examination during regular 

business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the 

above facility. All documents in the 

public docket are also available for 

inspection and copying on the Internet 

at the docket facility’s Web site at http: 

//www.regulations.gov. 

FRA wishes to inform all potential 

commenters that anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477– 

78) or you may visit http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC on August 6, 

2009. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E9–19279 Filed 8–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Notice of Application for Approval of 

Discontinuance or Modification of a 

Railroad Signal System or Relief From 

the Requirements of Title 49 Code of 

Federal Regulations Part 236 

Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49 

U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad 

has petitioned the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) seeking approval 

for the discontinuance or modification 

of the signal system or relief from the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 236, as 

detailed below. 

[Docket Number FRA–2009–0079] 

Applicant: Norfolk Southern 

Corporation. Mr. B. L. Sykes, Chief 

Engineer C&S Engineering, 1200 

Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 

30309. 

The Norfolk Southern Corporation 

(NS) seeks approval of the proposed 

discontinuance and removal of the 

control signals and the conversion of a 

power-operated crossover to handoperation at CP–111, Milepost EP–73.4, 

on the NS Harrisburg Division, Port 

Road Branch, Running Tracks B & C, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Four signals 

are to be removed and the poweroperated crossover is to be converted to 

hand-operation. 

The reason given for the proposed 

changes is to eliminate facilities no 

longer needed for present day operation. 

Any interested party desiring to 

protest the granting of an application 

shall set forth specifically the grounds 

upon which the protest is made, and 

include a concise statement of the 

interest of the party in the proceeding. 

Additionally, one copy of the protest 

shall be furnished to the applicant at the 

address listed above. 

FRA expects to be able to determine 

these matters without an oral hearing. 

However, if a specific request for an oral 

hearing is accompanied by a showing 

that the party is unable to adequately 

present his or her position by written 

statements, an application may be set 

for public hearing. 

All communications concerning this 

proceeding should be identified by 

Docket Number FRA–2009–0079 and 

may be submitted by one of the 

following methods: 

• Web site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the DOT electronic site; 

• Fax: 202–493–2251; 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES