Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 56207-56208 [05-19092]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Notices
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). The
Statement may also be found at https://
dms.dot.gov.
Issued in Washington, DC on September
19, 2005.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety
Standards and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 05–19093 Filed 9–23–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
Notice Publishing Substantive Criteria
for Evaluation of Applications under
the Railroad Rehabilitation and
Improvement Financing Program
(RRIF)
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
AGENCY:
Notice of Evaluation Criteria for
RRIF Program.
ACTION:
FRA is publishing this notice
in response to Congressional direction
contained in section 9003(j) of the
recently enacted Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU)
requesting the agency to identify the
substantive criteria and standards used
by the DOT/FRA to determine whether
to approve or disapprove applications
submitted under the RRIF Program. This
information is being provided by
publication in the Federal Register and
posting on the DOT/FRA website, as
required by the statute.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph Pomponio, Director, Office of
Freight Programs, Federal Railroad
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1120 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: 202–493–6051, e-mail:
Joseph.Pomponio@fra.dot.gov. Cynthia
Walters, Attorney, Office of Chief
Counsel, Federal Railroad
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1120 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20590.
Telelphone 202–493–6064, e-mail:
Cynthia.Walters@fra.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:49 Sep 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
Background
Congress recently amended sections
502 and 503 of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform
Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 821 et seq.), in
SAFETEA–LU (Pub. L. 109–59). These
amendments address DOT’s RRIF
program, which authorizes the Secretary
of Transportation (Secretary) to disburse
money through direct loans and loan
guarantees to various entities. RRIF
loans and loan guarantees are used to
acquire, improve or rehabilitate
intermodal or rail equipment and
facilities, refinance debt that was
undertaken for such purposes, or to
develop or establish new rail or
intermodal facilities. The SAFETEA–LU
amendments expand the total available
program obligations from $3.5 billion to
$35 billion and make several other
program changes. The Secretary’s
authority to administer this program has
been delegated to the Administrator of
FRA (49 CFR sections 1.49(t) and 260.1,
Program Authority).
In addition to the RRIF program
changes, SAFETEA–LU requires the
Department, within thirty days after
enactment of the statute, to publish in
the Federal Register and post on the
Department’s Web site the substantive
criteria and standards used by the
Secretary to determine whether
applications will be approved or
disapproved for RRIF loans. The
substantive criteria responsive to the
request of Congress are the subject of
this notice and are described below.
FRA’s Substantive Criteria for
Evaluation of RRIF Applications
FRA is providing the criteria and
standards used to determine whether to
approve or disapprove an application
submitted under section 502 of the
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory
Reform Act of 1976. These criteria are
drawn from the legislation authorizing
the RRIF program (45 U.S.C. 821 et seq.)
and program implementing regulations
(49 CFR part 260). The words used
below to describe the criteria differ from
the statute and the regulations only for
purposes of brevity. This notice does
not contain any new criteria or impose
any new legal requirements or have any
legal effect other than to satisfy the
mandate from Congress to issue this
notice. Determinations are made based
on the following criteria and standards,
as more fully set forth in the statute or
the regulations, evaluated individually
and considered collectively.
• The statutory eligibility of the
applicant and the project ( 49 CFR
260.3, definition of applicant and 49
CFR 260.5, eligible purposes);
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
56207
• The creditworthiness of the project,
including the present and probable
demand for rail services and a
reasonable likelihood that the loan will
be repaid on a timely basis. (49 CFR part
260, Subpart B–FRA policies and
procedures for Evaluating Applications
for Financial Assistance)
• The extent to which the project will
enhance safety. (49 CFR 260.7(a))
• The significance of the project on a
local, regional, or national level in terms
of generating economic benefits and
improving the railroad transportation
system. (49 CFR 260.7(c))
• The improvement to the
environment that is expected to result
directly or indirectly by the
implementation of the project. (49 CFR
260.7(b)) and
• The improvement in service or
capacity in the railroad transportation
system or the reduction in service-or
capacity-related problems that is
expected to result directly or indirectly
from the implementation of the project
(45 U.S.C. 822(c))
Issued in Washington, DC on September
19, 2005.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Federal Railroad Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–19094 Filed 9–23–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21859; Notice 2]
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.,
Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Toyota Motor North America (Toyota)
has determined that certain model year
2003 through 2005 vehicles that it
produced do not comply with S5(c)(2)
of 49 CFR 571.225, Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
225, ‘‘Child restraint anchorage
systems.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h), Toyota has
petitioned for a determination that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR
Part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance
Reports.’’ Notice of receipt of the
petition was published, with a 30 day
comment period, on July 19, 2005 in the
Federal Register (70 FR 41476). NHTSA
received one comment, from Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety
(Advocates).
Affected are a total of approximately
156,555 model year 2003 to 2005 Toyota
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
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
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56207-56208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19092]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21859; Notice 2]
Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance
Toyota Motor North America (Toyota) has determined that certain
model year 2003 through 2005 vehicles that it produced do not comply
with S5(c)(2) of 49 CFR 571.225, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 225, ``Child restraint anchorage systems.'' Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Toyota has petitioned for a determination
that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and
has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect
and Noncompliance Reports.'' Notice of receipt of the petition was
published, with a 30 day comment period, on July 19, 2005 in the
Federal Register (70 FR 41476). NHTSA received one comment, from
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates).
Affected are a total of approximately 156,555 model year 2003 to
2005 Toyota
[[Page 56208]]
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 rear-facing 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.
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 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
