Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority-Acquisition Exemption-BNSF Railway Company, 56208-56209 [05-18944]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
56208
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Notices
Tundra access cab vehicles produced
between September 1, 2002 and April
22, 2005. S5(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 225
requires each vehicle that
(i) Has a rear designated seating position
and meets the conditions in S4.5.4.1(b) of
Standard No. 208 * * * and, (ii) Has an air
bag on-off switch meeting the requirements
of S4.5.4 of Standard 208 * * * shall have
a child restraint anchorage system for a
designated passenger seating position in the
front seat, instead of a child restraint
anchorage system that is required for the rear
seat * * *.
The subject vehicles do not have a child
restraint lower anchorage in the front
seat as required by S5(c)(2).
Toyota believes that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no
corrective action is warranted. Toyota
states that it considered whether rearfacing child restraints could be used in
the noncompliant vehicles, and ‘‘is
unaware of any rear-facing child
restraints that require lower anchorages
in the vehicle.’’ Toyota further states,
Most, if not all rear facing child restraints
(even those with lower anchorage systems),
have belt paths which allow the child
restraint to be secured properly in the front
passenger seat of the subject vehicles
utilizing the front passenger seatbelt. We also
note that child restraint manufacturers
provide instructions with their child seats
(even lower anchorage equipped child seats)
on how to install their restraint with the
seatbelt. In addition, all Toyota Tundra
vehicles provide instructions on how to
install child restraints with the seatbelt.
The public comment by Advocates in
response to the Federal Register notice
states that Toyota’s rationale ‘‘does not
obviate the fact that front passenger
seating positions were required to be
equipped with LATCH [lower anchors
and tethers for children] because
LATCH systems more readily ensure the
proper installation of child restraints
and, therefore, are safer than using
vehicle seat belts,’’ as well as being
likely to lead to increased child restraint
use due to ease of use.
NHTSA agrees with Advocates that
the absence of LATCH anchorages
compromises the overall level of safety
of child restraints. FMVSS No. 225
requires a simple, uniform system for
installing child restraints that increases
the likelihood of proper installation.
Prior to FMVSS No. 225 many child
restraints were improperly installed,
increasing the safety risk to children
riding in the improperly installed child
restraints. Therefore, it is reasonable to
conclude that noncompliant vehicles do
not offer the same level of safety as
compliant vehicles because of the
increased risk of improper child
restraint installation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:49 Sep 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
Toyota further points out that model
year 2000 to 2002 Tundra access cab
vehicles have a front passenger airbag
on-off switch as standard equipment but
not lower anchorage system because
they were produced prior to the
effective date of the FMVSS No. 225
lower anchorage requirement with
which the subject vehicles noncomply.
Toyota asserts that,
considering child restraint installation in
the front passenger seat, the 2003–2005 MY
vehicles (subject vehicles) are no different
than the 2000–02 MY vehicles and further, it
follows that the subject vehicles are no less
safe than the 2000–02 MY vehicles.
Advocates responds by pointing out
that the promulgation of FMVSS No.
225 was justified by the additional
safety it would provide. ‘‘[F]ewer child
deaths and many fewer injuries are
expected to result from widespread use
of the LATCH system. * * * [and] it
will result in far fewer children being
exposed to the risk of riding in an
improperly installed child restraint.’’
NHTSA agrees with Advocates that the
noncompliant vehicles offer a lower
level of child passenger safety than
those which comply with the
requirements of FMVSS No. 225, which
is why the standard was promulgated.
Toyota further states that it
considered
whether a lower anchorage child restraint
can be mistakenly installed in the front
passenger seat attempting to utilize the lower
anchorage. Upon investigating the seat bight
of the subject vehicles, we believe a current
vehicle owner or subsequent owner could
easily observe that no lower anchorage bars
exist. We would also note that there are no
portions of the seat frame within the seat
bight of the front passenger seat that may be
mistaken for lower anchorage bars.
In response to this assertion,
Advocates states that it is ‘‘beside the
point that vehicle owners will not
mistakenly attempt to use the
nonexistent LATCH system * * * The
issue is that the noncompliance * * *
denies owners and parents the safer
LATCH alternative that is required by
law.’’
NHTSA agrees that this argument by
Toyota is beside the point in terms of
consequentiality to safety. Additionally,
through NHTSA’s child passenger safety
working group, many examples of
misuse have been presented. Parents
who mistakenly believe their vehicles
have LATCH (pre-2002 vehicles) have
used seatbelt latch plates, drilled holes
through the nylon webbing of the
seatbelt or seatbelt buckle stalk, and
attached seats to the seat support
structure or other places within the
vehicle that can be hooked to, all in
attempts to secure the child restraint
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
using the LATCH system. In this
particular case, the owner’s manual for
the Toyota Tundra provides instruction
for installing a child restraint using the
LATCH system, even though one is not
available. A parent might take an
improper action, as described
previously, in an attempt to ‘‘find’’ the
LATCH system or ‘‘create’’ a LATCH
system, resulting in the improper
installation of the child restraint.
Therefore, the lack of the required
LATCH system is consequential to
safety.
Finally, Toyota notes that it has not
received customer complaints regarding
the absence of a front passenger seat
child restraint lower anchorage system,
nor has it received any reports of a
crash, injury or fatality due to this
noncompliance. NHTSA does not
consider the absence of these reports to
be compelling evidence of the
inconsequentiality of this
noncompliance to safety.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that the petitioner
has not met its burden of persuasion
that the noncompliance described is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Toyota’s petition is hereby
denied.
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8).
Issued on: September 19, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle
Safety.
[FR Doc. 05–19092 Filed 9–23–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 34747]
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit
Authority—Acquisition Exemption—
BNSF Railway Company
The Central Puget Sound Regional
Transit Authority (Sound Transit), a
noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of
exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to
acquire from BNSF Railway Company
(BNSF) two lines of railroad, totaling
approximately 22.35 miles on the
Lakeview Subdivision located in Pierce
County, WA. The rail lines are as
follows: (1) The Lakeview North
Segment, between milepost 2.15 in
Tacoma and milepost 8.9 in Lakeview,
and (2) the Lakeview South Segment,
between milepost 8.9 in Lakeview and
milepost 24.5 in Nisqually.
At the time of filing of the verified
notice, Sound Transit and BNSF had
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Notices
executed purchase and sale agreements
with respect to both segments. Sound
Transit explains that it acquired the
Lakeview North Segment on September
28, 2004,1 and that it plans to acquire
the Lakeview South Segment on
September 28, 2005. Sound Transit
states that, pursuant to the purchase and
sale agreements, BNSF initially retained
an exclusive freight easement with
respect to operation of freight trains on
the two line segments. It adds, however,
that BNSF subsequently transferred its
freight common carrier easement with
respect to both segments to the City of
Tacoma, WA, d/b/a Tacoma Rail,
subject to retained trackage rights along
a portion of the line it conveyed to the
City. City of Tacoma, Department of
1 Sound Transit should have sought acquisition
authority (accompanied by any motion to dismiss
it wished to file) for the Lakeview North Segment
when it acquired it in September 2004. Sound
Transit is cautioned in the future to seek authority
at the time of the transaction.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:49 Sep 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
Public Utilities, Beltline Division, d/b/a
Tacoma Rail or Tacoma Municipal
Beltline or TMBL—Acquisition and
Operation Exemption—Lakeview
Subdivision, Quadlok-St. Clair and
Belmore-Olympia Rail Lines in Pierce
and Thurston Counties, WA, STB
Finance Docket No. 34555 (STB served
Oct. 19, 2004). Sound Transit indicates
that it is acquiring the two line segments
for the purpose of providing wholly
intrastate commuter rail passenger
operations, and that it will not be
providing rail freight service over the
lines.2
If the notice contains false or
misleading information, the exemption
is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the
proceeding to revoke the exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed
2 For these reasons, Sound Transit has
simultaneously filed a motion to dismiss the notice
of exemption in this proceeding. The motion will
be addressed in a subsequent Board decision.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
56209
at any time. The filing of a petition to
revoke will not automatically stay the
transaction.
An original and 10 copies of all
pleadings, referring to STB Finance
Docket No. 34747, must be filed with
the Surface Transportation Board, 1925
K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–
0001. In addition, a copy of each
pleading must be served on Charles A.
Spitulnik, McLeod, Watkinson & Miller,
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite
800, Washington, DC 20001.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at https://
www.stb.dot.gov.
Decided: September 16, 2005.
By the Board, David M. Konschnik,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05–18944 Filed 9–23–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56208-56209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18944]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 34747]
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority--Acquisition
Exemption--BNSF Railway Company
The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit),
a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR
1150.31 to acquire from BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) two lines of
railroad, totaling approximately 22.35 miles on the Lakeview
Subdivision located in Pierce County, WA. The rail lines are as
follows: (1) The Lakeview North Segment, between milepost 2.15 in
Tacoma and milepost 8.9 in Lakeview, and (2) the Lakeview South
Segment, between milepost 8.9 in Lakeview and milepost 24.5 in
Nisqually.
At the time of filing of the verified notice, Sound Transit and
BNSF had
[[Page 56209]]
executed purchase and sale agreements with respect to both segments.
Sound Transit explains that it acquired the Lakeview North Segment on
September 28, 2004,\1\ and that it plans to acquire the Lakeview South
Segment on September 28, 2005. Sound Transit states that, pursuant to
the purchase and sale agreements, BNSF initially retained an exclusive
freight easement with respect to operation of freight trains on the two
line segments. It adds, however, that BNSF subsequently transferred its
freight common carrier easement with respect to both segments to the
City of Tacoma, WA, d/b/a Tacoma Rail, subject to retained trackage
rights along a portion of the line it conveyed to the City. City of
Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities, Beltline Division, d/b/a Tacoma
Rail or Tacoma Municipal Beltline or TMBL--Acquisition and Operation
Exemption--Lakeview Subdivision, Quadlok-St. Clair and Belmore-Olympia
Rail Lines in Pierce and Thurston Counties, WA, STB Finance Docket No.
34555 (STB served Oct. 19, 2004). Sound Transit indicates that it is
acquiring the two line segments for the purpose of providing wholly
intrastate commuter rail passenger operations, and that it will not be
providing rail freight service over the lines.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sound Transit should have sought acquisition authority
(accompanied by any motion to dismiss it wished to file) for the
Lakeview North Segment when it acquired it in September 2004. Sound
Transit is cautioned in the future to seek authority at the time of
the transaction.
\2\ For these reasons, Sound Transit has simultaneously filed a
motion to dismiss the notice of exemption in this proceeding. The
motion will be addressed in a subsequent Board decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the proceeding to
revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time.
The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the
transaction.
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB
Finance Docket No. 34747, must be filed with the Surface Transportation
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a
copy of each pleading must be served on Charles A. Spitulnik, McLeod,
Watkinson & Miller, One Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 800,
Washington, DC 20001.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http:/
/www.stb.dot.gov.
Decided: September 16, 2005.
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-18944 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
