59302 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2004 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18653; Notice 2] 

Baby Trend, Inc., Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

Baby Trend, Inc. (Baby Trend) has 

determined that certain child restraint 

seats that it produced and sold between 

approximately June 2002 and June 2003 

do not comply with S5.2.3.2(a) of 49 

CFR 571.213, Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, 

‘‘Child restraint systems.’’ Pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Baby 

Trend has petitioned for an exemption 

from the notification and remedy 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 

on the basis that this noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Notice of receipt of Baby Trend’s 

petition was published, with a 30 day 

comment period, on July 29, 2004, in 

the Federal Register (69 FR 45372). 

NHTSA received no comments. 

S5.2.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213 requires 

that:

Each system surface * * * which is 

contactable by the dummy head when the 

system is tested in accordance with S6.1 

shall be covered with slow recovery, energy 

absorbing material with the following 

characteristics: (a) A 25 percent compressiondeflection resistance of not less than 0.5 and 

not more than 10 pounds per square inch 

when tested in accordance with S6.3.

Baby Trend produced a total of 

approximately 150,730 Latch-Loc infant 

car seats whose foam covering as 

molded onto the seat back of these seats 

has a compression-deflection resistance 

of 0.3 pounds per square inch, and 

therefore does not meet the 

compression-deflection resistance 

required by S5.2.3.2(a). 

Baby Trend does not believe that the 

product presents any real world safety 

hazard as verified by highly sensitive 

testing with calibrated dummies on 

actual production product. In June 2003, 

FMVSS No. 213 underwent a number of 

revisions including amendments to 

incorporate advanced test dummies and 

updated test procedures (68 FR 37620, 

June 24, 2003). This included amending 

S5.2.3.1 to eliminate subjecting child 

restraint systems to the compressiondeflection resistance requirements if 

they are tested to the revised standard 

using the advanced Part 572 Subpart R 

test dummy. 

The revised S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS No. 

213 states:

Each child restraint system other than a 

child harness, manufactured before August 1, 

2005, that is recommended under S5.5.2 for 

a child whose mass is less than 10 kg and 

that is not tested with the Part 572 Subpart 

R dummy, shall comply with S5.2.3.

Section S5.2.3 specifies the head impact 

protection requirements for the child 

restraint systems and includes the 

compression-deflection resistance 

requirements for the energy absorbing 

materials covering the child restraint 

system surfaces that are contactable by 

the dummy head when tested in 

accordance with S6.1. 

As stated in its petition, Baby Trend 

conducted testing of the subject child 

restraint systems in accordance with the 

revised FMVSS No. 213. Its testing 

included dynamic sled testing with the 

12-month-old size CRABI test dummy 

(Part 572 Subpart R dummy). The test 

results yielded head injury criterion 

(HIC36) values of approximately 500 to 

600, which are well within the 

maximum HIC36 requirement of 1000. 

NHTSA agrees that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Based on the 

successful dynamic testing conducted 

by Baby Trend on the non-compliant 

child restraint systems using the Part 

572 Subpart R dummy in accordance 

with the revised FMVSS No. 213, the 

head foam material appears to provide 

adequate head impact protection given 

the low HIC36 values measured. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that the petitioner 

has met its burden of persuasion that 

the noncompliance described is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, Baby Trend’s petition is 

granted and the petitioner is exempted 

from the obligation of providing 

notification of, and a remedy for, the 

noncompliance.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; 

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8)

Issued on: September 28, 2004. 

Kenneth N. Weinstein, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 04–22280 Filed 10–1–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 34541] 

Spokane County, WA, Division of 

Engineering and Roads—Acquisition 

Exemption—The Burlington Northern 

and Santa Fe Railway Company 

Spokane County, Division of 

Engineering and Roads (Spokane), a 

Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified 

notice of exemption under 49 CFR 

1150.41 to acquire from The Burlington 

Northern and Santa Fe Railway 

Company (BNSF), a line of railroad 

known as the Geiger Spur from milepost 

1493.95, on its Columbia River 

Subdivision, to milepost 4.93, on the 

Geiger Spur, a total distance of 4.93 

miles. 

This transaction is related to a 

verified notice of exemption in STB 

Finance Docket No. 34546, Western Rail 

Switching, Incorporated—Operation 

Exemption—Rail Line of Spokane 

County, WA, wherein Western Rail 

Switching, Incorporated seeks to operate 

the line being acquired by Spokane. 

Spokane certifies that its projected 

annual revenues as a result of this 

transaction will not exceed $5 million, 

and the transaction will not result in the 

creation of a Class I or Class II rail 

carrier. 

The transaction was scheduled to be 

consummated on October 1, 2004. 

If the notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. Petitions 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. 34541, must be filed with 

the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 

K Street NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, one copy of each 

pleading must be served on Martin 

Rollins, Spokane County Prosecuting 

Attorney’s Office, Civil Division, 1115 

West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 

99260. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at http://

www.stb.dot.gov.

Decided: September 24, 2004.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–22340 Filed 10–1–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P