Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Notices 24895 

Consumptive Use of Up to 5.000 mgd, 

Approval Date: April 27, 2009. 

43. Anadarko E&P Company, LP, R. 

Carlin #2H and #3H, ABR20090443, 

Snow Shoe Township, Centre County, 

PA, Consumptive Use of Up to 5.000 

mgd, Approval Date: April 27, 2009. 

44. Anadarko E&P Company, LP, COP 

Tract 252 #1000H, ABR20090444, 

Grugan Township, Clinton County, PA, 

Consumptive Use of Up to 5.000 mgd, 

Approval Date: April 27, 2009. 

45. Anadarko E&P Company, LP, COP 

Tract 252 #1001H and #1002H, 

ABR20090445, Grugan Township, 

Clinton County, PA, Consumptive Use 

of Up to 5.000 mgd, Approval Date: 

April 27, 2009. 

Authority: Public Law 91–575, 84 Stat. 

1509 et seq., 18 CFR Parts 806, 807, and 808. 

Dated: May 6, 2009. 

Thomas W. Beauduy, 

Deputy Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–12047 Filed 5–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7040–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0094] 

Notice of Receipt of Petition for 

Decision That Nonconforming 2006 

Ferrari 599 Passenger Cars 

Manufactured Before September 1, 

2006 Are Eligible for Importation 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for 

decision that nonconforming 2006 

Ferrari 599 passenger cars manufactured 

before September 1, 2006 are eligible for 

importation. 

SUMMARY: This document announces 

receipt by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a 

petition for a decision that 2006 Ferrari 

599 passenger cars manufactured before 

September 1, 2006 that were not 

originally manufactured to comply with 

all applicable Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards (FMVSS) are eligible 

for importation into the United States 

because (1) they are substantially 

similar to vehicles that were originally 

manufactured for sale in the United 

States and that were certified by their 

manufacturer as complying with the 

safety standards (the U.S.-certified 

version of the 2006 Ferrari 599 

passenger cars manufactured before 

September 1, 2006,) and (2) they are 

capable of being readily altered to 

conform to the standards. 

DATES: The closing date for comments 

on the petition is June 25, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

the docket and notice numbers above 

and be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: Comments must be 

written in the English language, and be 

no greater than 15 pages in length, 

although there is no limit to the length 

of necessary attachments to the 

comments. If comments are submitted 

in hard copy form, please ensure that 

two copies are provided. If you wish to 

receive confirmation that your 

comments were received, please enclose 

a stamped, self-addressed postcard with 

the comments. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Please see the Privacy Act heading 

below. 

Privacy Act: 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 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

DocketInfo.dot.gov. 

How to Read Comments Submitted to 

the Docket: You may read the comments 

received by Docket Management at the 

address and times given above. You may 

also see the comments on the Internet. 

To read the comments on the Internet, 

take the following steps: 

(1) Go to the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) Web page 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) On that page, click on ‘‘Advanced 

Docket Search.’’ 

(3) On the next page select 

‘‘NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION’’ from the 

drop-down menu in the Agency field 

and enter the Docket ID number shown 

at the heading of this document. 

(4) After entering that information, 

click on ‘‘submit.’’ 

(5) The next page contains docket 

summary information for the docket you 

selected. Click on the comments you 

wish to see. You may download the 

comments. Please note that even after 

the comment closing date, we will 

continue to file relevant information in 

the Docket as it becomes available. 

Further, some people may submit late 

comments. Accordingly, we recommend 

that you periodically search the Docket 

for new material. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–3151). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a 

motor vehicle that was not originally 

manufactured to conform to all 

applicable FMVSS shall be refused 

admission into the United States unless 

NHTSA has decided that the motor 

vehicle is substantially similar to a 

motor vehicle originally manufactured 

for importation into and sale in the 

United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 

30115, and of the same model year as 

the model of the motor vehicle to be 

compared, and is capable of being 

readily altered to conform to all 

applicable FMVSS. 

Petitions for eligibility decisions may 

be submitted by either manufacturers or 

importers who have registered with 

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As 

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA 

publishes notice in the Federal Register 

of each petition that it receives, and 

affords interested persons an 

opportunity to comment on the petition. 

At the close of the comment period, 

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the 

petition and any comments that it has 

received, whether the vehicle is eligible 

for importation. The agency then 

publishes this decision in the Federal 

Register. 

Wallace Environmental Testing 

Laboratories, Inc. (WETL) of Houston, 

TX (Registered Importer 90–005) has 

petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 

nonconforming 2006 Ferrari 599 

passenger cars manufactured before 

September 1, 2006 are eligible for 

importation into the United States. The 

vehicles which WETL believes are 

substantially similar are 2006 Ferrari 

599 passenger cars manufactured before 

September 1, 2006 that were 

manufactured for sale in the United 

States and certified by their 

manufacturer as conforming to all 

applicable FMVSS. 

The petitioner claims that it compared 

non-U.S. certified 2006 Ferrari 599 

24896 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Notices 

passenger cars manufactured before 

September 1, 2006 to their U.S.-certified 

counterparts, and found the vehicles to 

be substantially similar with respect to 

compliance with most FMVSS. 

WETL submitted information with its 

petition intended to demonstrate that 

non-U.S. certified 2006 Ferrari 599 

passenger cars manufactured before 

September 1, 2006, as originally 

manufactured, conform to many FMVSS 

in the same manner as their U.S. 

certified counterparts, or are capable of 

being readily altered to conform to those 

standards. 

Specifically, the petitioner claims that 

non-U.S. certified 2006 Ferrari 599 

passenger cars manufactured before 

September 1, 2006 are identical to their 

U.S. certified counterparts with respect 

to compliance with Standard Nos. 102 

Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, 

Starter Interlock, and Transmission 

Braking Effect, 103 Windshield 

Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 

Windshield Wiping and Washing 

Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 New 

Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch 

System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 

118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, 

and Roof Panel Systems, 124 

Accelerator Control Systems, 135 

Passenger Car Brake Systems, 201 

Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 

202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering 

Control Rearward Displacement, 205 

Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and 

Door Retention Components, 207 

Seating Systems, 212 Windshield 

Mounting, 214 Side Impact Protection, 

216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 

Windshield Zone Intrusion, 302 

Flammability of Interior Materials, and 

401 Interior Trunk Release. 

In addition, the petitioner claims that 

the vehicles comply with the Bumper 

Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581. 

The petitioner also contends that the 

vehicles are capable of being readily 

altered to meet the following standards, 

in the manner indicated: 

Standard No. 101 Controls and 

Displays: Inspection of all vehicles and 

installation of a U.S.-model instrument 

cluster with associated hardware and 

software, or modification of the existing 

instrument cluster to meet the 

requirements of this standard on 

vehicles not already so equipped. 

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective 

Devices and Associated Equipment: 

Inspection of all vehicles and 

installation, on vehicles that are not 

already so equipped, of U.S.-model 

components to meet the requirements of 

this standard. 

Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and 

Rims: Installation of a tire information 

placard on all vehicles not already so 

equipped. 

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: 

Inspection of all vehicles and 

installation of a U.S.-model passenger 

side rearview mirror, or inscription of 

the required warning statement on the 

face of that mirror on all vehicles not 

already so equipped. 

Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: 

Inspection of all vehicles and 

installation of a supplemental key 

warning buzzer, or installation of U.S.- 

version software on all vehicles not 

already so equipped. 

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash 

Protection: Inspection of all vehicles 

and replacement of any non U.S.-model 

seat belts, air bag control units, air bags, 

and sensors with U.S.-model 

components on vehicles that are not 

already so equipped; and (b) installation 

of U.S.-version software to ensure that 

the seat belt warning system meets the 

requirements of this standard. 

The petitioner states that the crash 

protection system used in these vehicles 

consists of dual front airbags, knee 

bolsters, and combination lap and 

shoulder belts at the front outboard 

seating positions. The seat belt systems 

are described as being self-tensioning, 

and capable of being released by means 

of a single red push-button. 

Standard No. 209 Seat Belt 

Assemblies: Inspection of all vehicles 

and replacement of any non U.S.-model 

seat belts with U.S.-certified model seat 

belts. 

Standard No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly 

Anchorages: Inspection of all vehicles 

and replacement of any non U.S.-model 

seat belts anchorage components with 

U.S.-model components. 

Standard No. 225 Child Restraint 

Anchorage Systems: Installation of U.S.- 

model child restraint systems. 

Standard No. 301 Fuel System 

Integrity: Inspection of all vehicles and 

replacement of any non U.S.-model fuel 

system components with U.S.-model 

components. 

The petitioner additionally states that 

a vehicle identification plate must be 

affixed to the vehicles near the left 

windshield post to meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. 

All comments received before the 

close of business on the closing date 

indicated above will be considered, and 

will be available for examination in the 

docket at the above addresses both 

before and after that date. To the extent 

possible, comments filed after the 

closing date will also be considered. 

Notice of final action on the petition 

will be published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to the authority 

indicated below. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and 

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. 

Issued on: May 19, 2009. 

Harry Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. E9–12154 Filed 5–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 35164; STB 

Docket No. AB–6 (Sub-No. 430X)] 

BNSF Railway Company-Petition for 

Declaratory Order; BNSF Railway 

Company—Abandonment Exemption— 

in Oklahoma County, OK 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of board action. 

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation 

Board (Board) hereby gives notice that, 

on its own motion, it granted BNSF 

Railway Company (BNSF) exemptions 

under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the 

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 (filing and 

procedure for application to abandon or 

discontinue service), 49 U.S.C. 10904 

(offers of financial assistance to avoid 

abandonment and discontinuance), and 

49 U.S.C. 10905 (offering abandoned rail 

properties for sale for public purposes) 

for a segment of track on the Chickasha 

Line in Oklahoma City, OK, between 

milepost 541.69 and milepost 540.15 

(the middle segment). The Board took 

this action in a decision served earlier 

in which it also found that a BNSF 

eastern segment project was a relocation 

that did not require prior agency 

authorization. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Dettmar, (202) 245–0395. 

[Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at: 

(800) 877–8339.] 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By 

petition filed on July 15, 2008, BNSF 

asked the Board to issue a declaratory 

order finding that what it characterized 

as two track relocation projects in 

Oklahoma City, OK did not require 

Board approval. 

The Board granted the requested 

declaratory relief as to the eastern 

segment. On the middle segment, Board 

concluded that the evidence before it in 

the two related dockets had provided 

ample support for authorizing 

abandonment of that segment. The 

evidence indicates that: the three