Intermountain Power Agency v. Union Pacific Railroad Company-Oral Argument, 64290-64291 [2013-25340]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
64290
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2013 / Notices
are designed to move down with a force
of 40±20N. The measured retention
force for the improperly machined
notch is nearly 4 times the nominal
adjustment force and 2.5 times the
maximum. Without the button
depressed, these head restraints will not
‘‘slip’’ or easily move down from the top
adjustment position. For most, it would
take a deliberate two-handed action to
cause the restraint to move from the top
to the mid position without activating
the release button. The tactile feedback
from such forced movement would be
clear indication that it is not the correct
method for adjusting the restraint. The
opportunity for inadvertent
misadjustment of the restraint is also
diminished due to the fact that these are
rear seat head restraints with no seating
positions behind them. They are not at
risk for misadjustment as a result of
someone bumping or grabbing the
restraint for assistance during vehicle
ingress and egress.
FMVSS No. 202a provides two
compliance options for head restraints.
They are Paragraph S4.2 (Dimensional
and Static Performance) or paragraph
S4.3 (Dynamic Performance and Width).
As with most of its vehicles, GM chose
to certify the rear seat head restraints for
the 2013 Cruze, Verano and Volt, to S4.2
(the ‘‘static option’’) and the front head
restraints to S4.3 (the ‘‘dynamic
option’’)
In order to evaluate the efficacy of the
rear head restraints with the improperly
machined notches, GM conducted a
series of 6 sled tests at MGA Research.
Two tests each were run for the Cruze,
Volt and Verano. For each vehicle, one
test was run according to the procedure
specified by FMVSS No. 202a paragraph
S4.3 which places the head restraint in
the mid-position, and a second test was
run in the same manner as the first test,
but with the head restraint placed in the
top position. The top position is that
used in the height retention test of the
static option, and that position is the
one with the improperly machined
notch. Improperly machined head
restraints and corresponding rod guides
were used for each test.
Significantly, in the three sled tests
with the head restraint in the uppermost
position, the head restraint did not
move down. For all tests, the head
restraint remained in its pretest height
adjustment throughout the test. Also, in
all sled tests (upper and mid position)
the dummy met the injury criteria
specified in the requirements for the
dynamic option (<12 degree of neck
rotation, <500 HIC) and head restraint
width >170 mm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:52 Oct 25, 2013
Jkt 232001
GM’s Arguments
GM believes that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety because for the
following reasons occupant protection is
not compromised:
1. The noncompliant test vehicles
meet the requirements specified under
the dynamic compliance option 1 in all
six sled tests. Therefore, GM believes
that the improperly machined head
restraint rod notches do not expose
occupants to a significantly greater risk
than those with properly machined
notches.
2. The head restraints remained in
their adjusted positions throughout the
tests.
3. The occupant performance criteria
specified for the dynamic compliance
option was met in both the mid and
upper head restraint adjustment
positions.
4. These head restraints will maintain
their adjusted positions during everyday
use of the vehicle.
5. Paragraph S4.2.6 of FMVSS No.
202a allows 13 mm of permanent
displacement of the head restraint. By
design, the distance between the top
and mid adjustment positions of the
subject head restraints is 19 mm. Thus,
the potential head restraint
displacement due to the improperly
machined notch is limited to 19 mm.
6. The owner’s manual instructions
continue to meet all the requirements of
FMVSS No. 202a. Even though the head
restraint could be forced down to the
mid-position, it still requires
substantially more effort than it does
when the adjustment button at the base
of the head restraint is depressed. The
owner’s manual instructions continue to
be the recommended manner of
adjustment.
7. GM is not aware of any injuries or
customer complaints associated with
this condition.
GM has additionally informed
NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future
production vehicles will comply with
FMVSS No. 202a.
In summation, GM believes that the
described noncompliance of its vehicles
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition, to exempt
from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120 should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore,
these provisions only apply to the
32,838 vehicles that GM no longer
controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However,
any decision on this petition does not
relieve vehicle distributors and dealers
of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction for delivery or
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their
control after GM notified them that the
subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013–25251 Filed 10–25–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. NOR 42136]
Intermountain Power Agency v. Union
Pacific Railroad Company—Oral
Argument
The Surface Transportation Board
will hold oral argument on Thursday,
November 14, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in the
hearing room at the Board’s
headquarters located at 395 E Street
SW., Washington, DC. The argument
will address the complaint of
Intermountain Power Agency (IPA)
challenging the reasonableness of rates
established by Union Pacific Railroad
Company (UP) for unit train coal
transportation service from a point of
interchange with the Utah Railway
Company at Provo, Utah, to IPA’s
electric generating facilities at Lynndyl,
Utah. The oral argument will be open
for public observation, but only counsel
for the parties will be permitted to
present arguments.
IPA filed its complaint on May 30,
2012, and filed its opening evidence on
December 17, 2012. UP filed its reply
evidence on April 12, 2013. IPA filed its
rebuttal evidence on July 3, 2013, and
the parties filed final briefs on August
14, 2013. On August 29, 2013, IPA filed
an unopposed motion requesting that
the Board hold an oral argument in this
proceeding. In their final briefs, the
parties dispute numerous issues, among
them whether certain traffic in IPA’s
Stand-Alone Cost model includes an
E:\FR\FM\28OCN1.SGM
28OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2013 / Notices
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
improper cross-subsidy and whether the
Board should apply a new cross-subsidy
test proposed by UP to replace the
Board’s existing test. Parties should
focus their argument on the crosssubsidy issues in addition to any other
issues they consider important.
By November 7, 2013, each party shall
submit to the Board the name of the
counsel who will be presenting
argument, and the name of the party
counsel will be representing. IPA shall
have 20 minutes to present its argument,
and UP shall have 20 minutes to present
its argument. IPA, in its filing, shall
address the requested time reserved for
rebuttal, if any.
Counsel for the parties shall check in
with Board staff in the hearing room
prior to the argument.
A video broadcast of the oral
argument will be available via the
Board’s Web site at https://
www.stb.dot.gov, under ‘‘Information
Center’’/‘‘Webcast’’/‘‘Live Video’’ on the
home page.
Instructions for Attendance at
Argument
The STB requests that all persons
attending the argument use the Patriots
Plaza Building’s main entrance at 395 E
Street SW., (closest to the northeast
corner of the intersection of 4th and E
Streets). There will be no reserved
seating, except for those scheduled to
present oral arguments. The building
will be open to the public at 7:00 a.m.,
and participants are encouraged to
arrive early. There is no public parking
in the building.
Upon arrival, check in at the 1st floor
security desk in the main lobby. Be
prepared to produce valid photographic
identification (driver’s license or local,
state, or Federal government
identification); sign-in at the security
desk; receive a hearing room pass (to be
displayed at all times); submit to an
inspection of all briefcases, handbags,
etc.; then pass through a metal detector.
Persons choosing to exit the building
during the course of the argument must
surrender their hearing room passes to
security personnel and will be subject to
the above security procedures if they
choose to re-enter the building. Hearing
room passes likewise will be collected
from those exiting the argument upon
its conclusion.
Laptops and recorders may be used in
the hearing room, but no provision will
be made for connecting personal
computers to the Internet. Cellular
telephone use is not permitted in the
hearing room; cell phones may be used
quietly in the corridor surrounding the
hearing room or in the building’s main
lobby.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:52 Oct 25, 2013
Jkt 232001
The Board’s hearing room complies
with the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and persons needing such
accommodations should call (202) 245–
0245 by the close of business on
November 13, 2013.
For further information regarding the
oral argument, contact Jonathon Binet,
(202) 245–0368. Assistance for the
hearing impaired is available through
the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at (800) 877–8339.
This action will not significantly
affect either the quality of the human
environment or the conservation of
energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. Oral argument in this proceeding
will be held on November 14, 2013, at
9:30 a.m. in the Surface Transportation
Board Hearing Room, at 395 E Street
SW., Washington, DC, as described
above.
2. By November 7, 2013, the
participants shall submit to the Board
the names of the counsel who will be
presenting argument and the name of
the party counsel will be representing.
IPA and UP, in their filings, also shall
advise the Board how they choose to
divide their time and address the
requested time reserved for rebuttal, if
any.
3. This decision is effective on the
date of service.
Decided: October 22, 2013.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2013–25340 Filed 10–25–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. EP 670 (Sub–No. 2)]
Notice of Rail Energy Transportation
Advisory Committee Vacancy
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of vacancy on federal
advisory committee and solicitation of
nominations.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Surface Transportation
Board (Board) hereby gives notice of one
vacancy on its Rail Energy
Transportation Advisory Committee
(RETAC) for a representative of an
electric utility. The Board is soliciting
suggestions from the public for a
candidate to fill this vacancy.
DATES: Suggestions for a candidate for
membership on RETAC are due
November 27, 2013.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64291
Suggestions 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
https://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. EP 670 (SubNo. 2), 395 E Street SW., Washington,
DC 20423–0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael H. Higgins at 202–245–0284.
[Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–
800–877–8339.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Board, established by Congress in 1996
to assume many of the functions
previously performed by the Interstate
Commerce Commission, exercises broad
authority over transportation by rail
carriers, including regulation of railroad
rates and service (49 U.S.C. 10701–
10747, 11101–11124), as well as the
construction, acquisition, operation, and
abandonment of rail lines (49 U.S.C.
10901–10907), and railroad line sales,
consolidations, mergers, and common
control arrangements (49 U.S.C. 10902,
11323–11327).
In 2007, the Board established RETAC
as a federal advisory committee
consisting of a balanced cross-section of
energy and rail industry stakeholders to
provide independent, candid policy
advice to the Board and to foster open,
effective communication among the
affected interests on issues such as rail
performance, capacity constraints,
infrastructure planning and
development, and effective coordination
among suppliers, carriers, and users of
energy resources. RETAC operates
subject to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2.
RETAC’s membership is balanced and
representative of interested and affected
parties, consisting of not less than: Five
representatives from the Class I
railroads; three representatives from
Class II and III railroads; three
representatives from coal producers;
five representatives from electric
utilities (including at least one rural
electric cooperative and one state- or
municipally-owned utility); four
representatives from biofuel refiners,
processors, or distributors, or biofuel
feedstock growers or providers; one
representative of the petroleum
shipping industry; and two
representatives from private car owners,
car lessors, or car manufacturers.
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\28OCN1.SGM
28OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64290-64291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25340]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. NOR 42136]
Intermountain Power Agency v. Union Pacific Railroad Company--
Oral Argument
The Surface Transportation Board will hold oral argument on
Thursday, November 14, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in the hearing room at the
Board's headquarters located at 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC. The
argument will address the complaint of Intermountain Power Agency (IPA)
challenging the reasonableness of rates established by Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UP) for unit train coal transportation service from a
point of interchange with the Utah Railway Company at Provo, Utah, to
IPA's electric generating facilities at Lynndyl, Utah. The oral
argument will be open for public observation, but only counsel for the
parties will be permitted to present arguments.
IPA filed its complaint on May 30, 2012, and filed its opening
evidence on December 17, 2012. UP filed its reply evidence on April 12,
2013. IPA filed its rebuttal evidence on July 3, 2013, and the parties
filed final briefs on August 14, 2013. On August 29, 2013, IPA filed an
unopposed motion requesting that the Board hold an oral argument in
this proceeding. In their final briefs, the parties dispute numerous
issues, among them whether certain traffic in IPA's Stand-Alone Cost
model includes an
[[Page 64291]]
improper cross-subsidy and whether the Board should apply a new cross-
subsidy test proposed by UP to replace the Board's existing test.
Parties should focus their argument on the cross-subsidy issues in
addition to any other issues they consider important.
By November 7, 2013, each party shall submit to the Board the name
of the counsel who will be presenting argument, and the name of the
party counsel will be representing. IPA shall have 20 minutes to
present its argument, and UP shall have 20 minutes to present its
argument. IPA, in its filing, shall address the requested time reserved
for rebuttal, if any.
Counsel for the parties shall check in with Board staff in the
hearing room prior to the argument.
A video broadcast of the oral argument will be available via the
Board's Web site at https://www.stb.dot.gov, under ``Information
Center''/``Webcast''/``Live Video'' on the home page.
Instructions for Attendance at Argument
The STB requests that all persons attending the argument use the
Patriots Plaza Building's main entrance at 395 E Street SW., (closest
to the northeast corner of the intersection of 4th and E Streets).
There will be no reserved seating, except for those scheduled to
present oral arguments. The building will be open to the public at 7:00
a.m., and participants are encouraged to arrive early. There is no
public parking in the building.
Upon arrival, check in at the 1st floor security desk in the main
lobby. Be prepared to produce valid photographic identification
(driver's license or local, state, or Federal government
identification); sign-in at the security desk; receive a hearing room
pass (to be displayed at all times); submit to an inspection of all
briefcases, handbags, etc.; then pass through a metal detector. Persons
choosing to exit the building during the course of the argument must
surrender their hearing room passes to security personnel and will be
subject to the above security procedures if they choose to re-enter the
building. Hearing room passes likewise will be collected from those
exiting the argument upon its conclusion.
Laptops and recorders may be used in the hearing room, but no
provision will be made for connecting personal computers to the
Internet. Cellular telephone use is not permitted in the hearing room;
cell phones may be used quietly in the corridor surrounding the hearing
room or in the building's main lobby.
The Board's hearing room complies with the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and persons needing such accommodations should call
(202) 245-0245 by the close of business on November 13, 2013.
For further information regarding the oral argument, contact
Jonathon Binet, (202) 245-0368. Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800)
877-8339.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. Oral argument in this proceeding will be held on November 14,
2013, at 9:30 a.m. in the Surface Transportation Board Hearing Room, at
395 E Street SW., Washington, DC, as described above.
2. By November 7, 2013, the participants shall submit to the Board
the names of the counsel who will be presenting argument and the name
of the party counsel will be representing. IPA and UP, in their
filings, also shall advise the Board how they choose to divide their
time and address the requested time reserved for rebuttal, if any.
3. This decision is effective on the date of service.
Decided: October 22, 2013.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of
Proceedings.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2013-25340 Filed 10-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
