60470 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2004 / Notices 

1See KBUS Holdings, LLC—Acquisition of Assets 

and Business Operations—All West Coachlines, 

Inc., et al., STB Docket No. MC–F–21000 (STB 

served July 23, 2003).

standard so that for lamps (other than 

headlamps) sold in pairs where each 

lamp contains all of the functions it 

replaces, compliance with location and 

color requirements would be 

determined based on the pair of lamps 

rather than the individual lamp, as long 

as the instructions to the purchaser 

make it clear that both lamps must be 

installed together. 

We believe that a complete 

prohibition of any change in location or 

color is unnecessarily design-restrictive. 

We also recognize that, in the case of 

restyled lamps sold in pairs, consumers 

generally purchase the lamps to 

customize their vehicles. Consumers are 

unlikely to replace only one of a pair of 

lamps in this situation, since it would 

give their vehicles an odd, unbalanced 

appearance. 

Pending completion of this 

rulemaking action, we will not enforce 

the location and color requirements for 

replacement lamps sold in pairs where 

each lamp or combination lamp 

contains all of the functions of the lamp 

it replaces and a vehicle would meet the 

location and color requirements with 

the pair of lamps installed. 

We do not intend to propose to permit 

required functions to be moved from 

one lamp to another lamp, as in the 

Calcoast example, even if the lamps are 

sold in sets. Therefore, we may take 

enforcement action, as appropriate, with 

respect to such equipment. 

This situation is not comparable to 

the one discussed earlier. There is a 

greater chance that a consumer may not 

use all of the lamps in such a 

replacement set, since the use of only 

some of the lamps would not 

necessarily give the vehicle an odd, 

unbalanced appearance. For example, if 

a replacement lamp set consisted of four 

lamps across the rear of a vehicle, a 

consumer might replace only the outer 

lamps. 

In addition, the safety consequences 

of a consumer not using all of the lamps 

would be much greater. In the case for 

which we intend to initiate rulemaking, 

the failure of a consumer to install both 

lamps could result in required functions 

being at different heights or having 

different colors on opposite sides of the 

vehicle. In this other case, however, a 

required safety function would be lost 

altogether. 

5. Large Vehicles 

Our interpretation of S5.8.1 applies to 

all covered vehicles, regardless of 

vehicle size. Because that section does 

not make a distinction based upon 

vehicle size, we believe it would be 

inappropriate to have different 

interpretations of that provision based 

upon vehicle size. 

We recognize, however, that the part 

of our interpretation about replacement 

lighting equipment not taking a vehicle 

out of compliance with FMVSS No. 108 

is likely to have a more limited 

application to aftermarket lighting 

equipment for large vehicles (those 

whose width is 2032 mm (80 inches) or 

more) than to small vehicles. The 

specific context of the questions asked 

by Calcoast was aftermarket 

combination lamps for small vehicles, 

such as passenger cars. These lamps are 

typically designed for specific models 

and can only be installed on those 

models in the same location as the 

lamps they replace. In this type of 

situation, the issue of whether 

installation of the lamp will take a 

vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS 

No. 108 (e.g., by not including a 

required function that was present on 

the lamp being replaced) is relatively 

straightforward. 

However, for large vehicles, lighting 

equipment is often generic and not 

designed for specific models. TruckLite, for example, commented that it 

sells many kinds of lighting devices 

through catalog sales to hundreds of 

vehicle manufacturers whose equipment 

it has no way of knowing about. Our 

interpretation was not intended to 

suggest that the manufacturer of generic 

lighting equipment has the 

responsibility for ensuring correct 

selection and installation of its 

equipment. On the other hand, under 

our interpretation, a manufacturer of 

aftermarket lighting equipment could 

not design or recommend lighting 

equipment for a specific vehicle if 

installation of the equipment (assuming 

it was done correctly) took a vehicle out 

of compliance with FMVSS No. 108.

Issued on October 1, 2004. 

Jacqueline Glassman, 

Chief Counsel.

[FR Doc. 04–22623 Filed 10–7–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. MC–F–21007] 

CUSA RAZ, LLC d/b/a Raz 

Transportation Company—Acquisition 

of Assets and Business Operations—

Raz Transportation Company

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT.

ACTION: Notice tentatively approving 

finance transaction. 

SUMMARY: CUSA RAZ, LLC d/b/a Raz 

Transportation Company (CUSA RAZ or 

Applicant), a noncarrier, has filed an 

application under 49 U.S.C. 14303 to 

acquire the assets and business 

operations of Raz Transportation 

Company (MC–153581) (Raz or Seller). 

Persons wishing to oppose this 

application must follow the rules at 49 

CFR 1182.5 and 1182.8. The Board has 

tentatively approved the transaction, 

and, if no opposing comments are 

timely filed, this notice will be the final 

Board action.

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

November 22, 2004. Applicant may file 

a reply by December 7, 2004. If no 

comments are filed by November 22, 

2004, this notice is effective on that 

date.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10 

copies of any comments referring to STB 

Docket No. MC–F–21007 to: Surface 

Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. In 

addition, send one copy of any 

comments to applicant’s representative: 

Stephen Flott, Flott & Co. PC, P.O. Box 

17655, Arlington, VA 22216–7655.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

S. Davis, (202) 565–1600. (Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the 

hearing impaired: 1–800–877–8339.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CUSA 

RAZ is a new company wholly owned 

and created by CUSA, LLC (CUSA) to 

undertake this transaction. CUSA is a 

noncarrier which controls over 20 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA) registered 

motor passenger carriers, and, in turn, is 

wholly owned by KBUS Holdings, LLC 

(KBUS), a noncarrier. KBUS acquired 

control of over 30 motor passenger 

carriers formerly owned by Coach USA, 

Inc., and then consolidated those 

entities into the motor passenger 

carriers now controlled by CUSA.1

These carriers operate more than 1,000 

coaches and 600 other revenue vehicles 

in 35 states. Annual revenues for the 

companies controlled by CUSA for 2004 

are forecast to be $220 million.

Applicant has entered into an 

agreement with Raz to buy Raz’s assets, 

including vehicles, and its business 

operations. CUSA RAZ has an 

application pending with FMCSA to 

obtain contract and common carrier 

operating rights. Once this transaction is 

consummated, the Federal operating 

authority currently held by Seller will 

be surrendered. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2004 / Notices 60471

1The Board previously granted an exemption to 

Morristown & Erie Railway, Inc. (M&E) to operate 

the rail property that is the subject of this notice 

of exemption. See Morristown & Erie Railway, 

Inc.—Operation Exemption—Somerset Terminal 

Railroad Corporation, STB Finance Docket No. 

34267 (STB served Dec. 20, 2002).

2By letter filed on September 16, 2004, 

Bridgewater Resources, Inc. (Bridgewater), which 

owns and operates a solid waste transfer facility 

near Bridgewater, NJ, states that neither STRR nor 

M&E have operating rights over the property in 

question. Bridgewater states that it owns the 

exclusive easement over the property, as well as the 

track and track structure. According to Bridgewater, 

Norfolk Southern Railway Company has used the 

track, with Bridgewater’s permission, to provide 

direct rail service to Bridgewater’s facility. 

Bridgewater does not seek to stay the exemption but 

urges the Board in publishing its notice to stress 

that publication of this notice does not constitute 

any finding by the Board concerning the ownership 

of the property involved and does not provide any 

basis for STRR to claim that the Board has 

permitted STRR to conduct or subcontract 

operations in the absence of a decision by the court 

that STRR has the legal right to conduct such 

operations. STRR replied on September 17, 2004.

Under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), the Board 

must approve and authorize a 

transaction found to be consistent with 

the public interest, taking into 

consideration at least: (1) The effect of 

the transaction on the adequacy of 

transportation to the public; (2) the total 

fixed charges that result; and (3) the 

interest of affected carrier employees. 

Applicant has submitted information, 

as required by 49 CFR 1182.2, including 

information to demonstrate that the 

proposed transaction is consistent with 

the public interest under 49 U.S.C. 

14303(b). Specifically, applicant states 

that the public will be unaffected by the 

proposed transaction because the new 

company will be operated by the same 

managers and in the same manner as 

Raz. Also, CUSA RAZ states that the 

proposed transaction will have no effect 

on fixed charges or employees. 

Applicant states that all qualified Raz 

employees who desire employment will 

be offered employment with CUSA 

RAZ. CUSA RAZ asserts that the 

proposed transaction will allow CUSA 

to extend its advantages of volume 

purchasing power in areas such as 

equipment and fuel to this new 

acquisition. Additional information, 

including a copy of the application, may 

be obtained from Applicant’s 

representative. 

On the basis of the application, the 

Board finds that the proposed 

transaction is consistent with the public 

interest and should be authorized. If any 

opposing comments are timely filed, 

this finding will be deemed vacated 

and, unless a final decision can be made 

on the record as developed, a 

procedural schedule will be adopted to 

reconsider the application. See 49 CFR 

1182.6(c). If no opposing comments are 

filed by the expiration of the comment 

period, this decision will take effect 

automatically and will be the final 

Board action. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at http://

www.stb.dot.gov.

This decision will not significantly 

affect either the quality of the human 

environment or the conservation of 

energy resources. 

It is ordered:

1. The proposed finance transaction is 

approved and authorized, subject to the 

filing of opposing comments. 

2. If timely opposing comments are 

filed, the findings made in this decision 

will be deemed vacated. 

3. This decision will be effective on 

November 22, 2004, unless timely 

opposing comments are filed. 

4. A copy of this notice will be served 

on: (1) The U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, 

SW., Room 8214, Washington, DC 

20590; (2) the U.S. Department of 

Justice, Antitrust Division, 10th Street & 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20530; and (3) the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Office of 

the General Counsel, 400 7th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Decided: October 4, 2004.

By the Board, Chairman Nober, Vice 

Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner 

Buttrey. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–22704 Filed 10–7–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 34551] 

Standard Terminal Railroad of New 

Jersey, Inc.—Acquisition Exemption—

Rail Line of Joseph C. Horner 

Standard Terminal Railroad of New 

Jersey, Inc. (STRR), a noncarrier, has 

filed a verified notice of exemption 

under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire 

approximately 1.25 miles of rail line 

located in the Township of Bridgewater 

and the Borough of Manville, Somerset 

County, NJ, that is part of a rail line 

known as the Reading Company New 

York Branch (also known as the Raritan 

Valley Connecting Track), and 

identified as Line Code 0326, between 

milepost 57.25 at Manville Yard and 

milepost 58.50 at a junction with New 

Jersey’s commuter line.1 STRR will 

provide common carrier rail service 

through a subcontractor who will 

conduct the day-to-day operations on 

the line.

STRR states that it has purchased the 

right to operate over this line of railroad, 

which is owned by Joseph C. Horner, 

pursuant to a perpetual, irrevocable, 

exclusive and assignable easement. 

STRR also states that it has acquired 

title to a railroad bridge spanning the 

Raritan River that connects the 

properties on which the easement lies. 

STRR indicates that, although Mr. 

Horner and STRR effectuated the 

transfer of property by Quitclaim Deeds 

on July 26 and 27, 2002, the ownership 

of the property is a matter pending in 

the United States Bankruptcy Court. In 

the Matter of Bridgwater Resources, Inc.,

No. 00–60057 (WHG) (D.N.J.). 

Publication of this notice and 

effectiveness of the exemption does not 

constitute any finding by the Board 

concerning the ownership of the 

property involved. The exemption 

merely permits STRR and Mr. Horner to 

consummate the described transaction if 

and when they, in fact, have the legal 

capacity to do so.2

It should be noted that there may be 

two operators on the line if STRR begins 

operations. The Board has sanctioned 

dual operations on rail lines previously, 

and requires coordinated dispatching 

and operating protocols to assure safe 

operations. The Federal Railroad 

Administration also has regulations 

governing rail safety in the instance of 

such operations. These regulations have 

assured safe operations in the past and 

may be relied upon to do so in the 

future, on this line and elsewhere. To 

assure coordination of dispatching, 

STRR must certify to the Board that 

coordination protocols for dual 

operations are in place and have been 

fully communicated to the other 

operator before its operations can 

commence on the line under this 

authority. 

STRR certifies that its projected 

revenues as a result of this transaction 

will not exceed those that would qualify 

it as a Class III rail carrier. 

STRR states that it intends to 

consummate the transaction by the later 

of 7 days after the exemption was filed 

or upon affirmation of its ownership 

rights by the bankruptcy court. 

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. 34551, must be filed with