Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Notices 25037

85 Jarvis v. Ford, Daubert Hearing Tr. 85. ‘‘You

can’t release it [the MVDV] because you can’t move

the [brake] pedal enough.’’

86McMath letter, 1.

5.2 Cruise Control Mechanical Vacuum

Dump Valve (MVDV) Operation

As described earlier in Section 4.3.1, as

soon as the brakes were applied, a functional

MVDV would have immediately depleted

servo vacuum and allowed the engine to

return to idle in the event a cruise control

electrical malfunction occurred. There is no

evidence that the MVDV has ever

malfunctioned during the subject vehicle’s

life. ODI examined the MVDV and its

mounting bracket and found both to be

undamaged and adjustment of the MVDV

was found to be within Ford’s recommended

specification.

Mr. Sero has alleged that certain drivers are

unable to exert enough force on the brake

pedal to activate the MVDV.85 This assertion

is plainly wrong. For example, the subject

Town Car’s MVDV opens (vents) whenever

the brake pedal is depressed 3⁄4 inch, which

occurs at about 3.5 lb. of force with the

power brakes functioning and 12 lb. without.

To put those pedal forces in perspective,

ninety-nine percent of the adult population

in the United States is able to exert at least

60 lb. of force on the brake pedal.

5.3 Cruise Control Type

Mr. Sero’s theory is based on his

observation that ‘‘voltage is supplied to the

servo the moment the ignition is turned on’’

and ‘‘under this condition, all that is

necessary to induce wide open [sic] throttle

is a completion of a circuit to the servo.’’ 86

However, a failure consistent with the

petitioner’s multiple servo solenoid ground

fault theory could not have contributed to the

June 7, 1995 SAI in Mountain Home,

Arkansas because the MY 1988 Town Car

was equipped with an ‘‘integrated’’ cruise

control system. As described in Section 4.1.3

of this document, in certain Ford vehicles

beginning with MY 1986, the control-logic

function has been integrated into the

electronic engine control (EEC) module.

Unlike Ford’s ‘‘stand-alone system,’’ the

integrated system does not allow full power

to reach the servo solenoids unless

appropriately signaled by the EEC even in the

unlikely event that multiple servo solenoid

ground faults occur—assuming the system’s

installation is consistent with Ford’s design.

6.0 Conclusions

The petitioner, some plaintiff consultants,

and a few in the news media have alleged

that ‘‘new’’ information, developed since

NHTSA’s Study was conducted, justifies its

reopening to ascertain the cause or causes of

sudden acceleration. They view the Study’s

findings as flawed because it allegedly did

not consider the possibility or consequences

of cruise control failure modes involving

inadvertent solenoid activation. However, the

Study did consider these issues. Moreover,

the petitioner’s theory is contingent upon the

occurrence of simultaneous, undetectable

mechanical and electrical system failures.

Absent these failures, no inadvertent servo

solenoid activation could occur which would

result in an unintended increase in engine

power. The mere fact that some vehicles have

been built with cruise control systems that

may allow inadvertent servo solenoid

activation does not sustain a conclusion that

such an activation could lead to a SAI.

Voluminous data indicates it does not.

Indeed, the fact that the petitioner (and

others) have never produced credible

evidence that simultaneous, undetectable

electrical and mechanical cruise control

system failures have resulted in a single

SAI—let alone frequently enough to justify a

safety recall—supports the Study’s original

finding that ‘‘the occurrence of such

simultaneous, undetectable failures is

virtually impossible.’’

References

Bracket, Pezoldt, Sherrod, and Roush.

September 1989. Human Factors Analysis of

Automotive Foot Pedals. Texas

Transportation Institute. DOT report HS–

807–512.

Bosch, Robert. Automotive Handbook.

Stuttgart: Robert Bosch GmbH, 1993.

Chapman v. Fett et al., Civ–97–144, Circuit

Court of Baxter County, Arkansas.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,

Inc., 509 U.S. Supreme Court 579 (1993).

Ford Motor Co., Alleged Unintended

Acceleration Investigative Effort Summary,

Ford Motor Co., January, 1993.

Ford Motor Company. 1998 Car Shop

Manual, Vol. A. Lincoln Town Car, Ford

Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis.

Dearborn, MI: Ford Parts and Service

Division, 1997.

Ford Motor Company. 1998 Lincoln Town

Car, Electrical and Vacuum Troubleshooting

Manual. Dearborn, MI: Ford Parts and

Service Division, 1997.

Ford Motor Company, Profs Field Bulletin

No. 92182DB60005, June 30, 1992.

General Motors, Inc. Cadillac Motor Car

Division. 1985 Cadillac Service Information

Final Edition. Detroit, MI: General Motors,

1985.

Goodman, Richard M. and Center for Auto

Safety. Automobile Design Liability. 3d,

Volume 2, New York, NY: Clark, Boardman,

Callaghan, 1991.

Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co., 92 Civ. 2900

(NRB), U.S. District Court, Southern District

of New York.

Kowalke, Ron. Standard Catalog of Ford,

1903–1998, 2nd Edition. Iola, WI: Krause

Publications, 1998.

Manigault v. Ford Motor Co., Case No.

286862, Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga

County, Ohio.

McGraw-Hill, Encyclopedia of Electronics

and Computers, 1988.

Mortimer, R.G., Segal, L., Dugoff, H.,

Campbell, J.D., Jorgeson, C.M., and Murphy,

R.W. ‘‘Brake force requirements study:

Driver-vehicle braking performance as a

function of brake system design variables.’’

Highway Safety Research Institute (HSRI),

Final Report contract FH–11–6952, National

Highway Safety Bureau, 1970.

National Broadcasting Co. Not So Fast.

New York, NY. NBC News Dateline NBC.

February 10, 1999.

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), National Climatic

Data Center, Daily Surface Data, October 8,

1999.

Palmquist, Roland E. Electrical Course for

Apprentices and Journeymen. New York, NY.

Macmillan Publishing Co., 1988.

B. Peacock & W. Karwowski (Eds.),

Automotive Ergonomics: Human Factors in

the Design and Use of Automobiles. London:

Taylor and Francis, 1991.

Perel, M. (1983). Vehicle Familiarity and

Safety (Tech. Report DOT HS–806–509).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Transportation.

Random House, Inc. The Random House

College Dictionary. New York, NY: Random

House, Inc. 1982.

Ribbens, William B. Understanding

Automotive Electronics. Fifth Edition.

Woburn, MA. Buterworth-Heinemann, 1998.

Schmidt, Richard A. ‘‘Unintended

Acceleration: A Review of Human Factors

Contributions,’’ Human Factors Society, Inc.

31(3), 345–364.

U.S. Department of Transportation.

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, Office of Defects

Investigation. ‘‘Engineering Analysis Closing

Report, EA78–110,’’ by Wolfgang Reinhart.

Washington, DC: NHTSA, August 3, 1996.

U.S. Department of Transportation.

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, Office of Defects

Investigation. ‘‘The Effect of

Countermeasures to Reduce the Incidence of

Unintended Acceleration Accidents’’ by

Wolfgang Reinhart. Paper (No. 94 S5 O 07)

delivered to the Fourteenth International

Technical Conference on Enhanced Safety of

Vehicles, Munich, Germany, May 23–26,

1994, a conference sponsored by the U.S.

Department of Transportation.

U.S. Department of Transportation.

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, Office of Defects

Investigation. Investigation of Sudden

Acceleration Incident in Minneapolis, MN, by

Bob Young. MF99–002, January 12, 1999.

U.S. Department of Transportation.

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, Office of Defects

Investigation. Investigation of Sudden

Acceleration Incident in Minneapolis, MN,

Supplemental Report, by Bob Young. MF99–

002, March 18, 1999.

U.S. Department of Transportation.

Transportation Systems Center. An

Examination of Sudden Acceleration, by

John Pollard and E. Donald Sussman. DOT

report HS–807–367. Cambridge, MA: TSC,

January 1989.

[FR Doc. 00–10624 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. MC–F–20966]

Global Passenger Services, L.L.C., et

al.—Control—Davis Bus Lines, Inc., et

al.

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

25038 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Notices

1See Global Passenger Services, L.L.C., et al.—

Control—Gongaware Tours, Inc., et al., STB Docket

No. MC–F–20954 (STB served Sept. 16, 1999,

corrected decision served Sept. 20, 1999); and

Global Passenger Services, L.L.C.—Control—Bortner

Bus Company, et al., STB Docket No. MC–F–20924

(STB served July 17, 1998).

2 Davis is a Pennsylvania corporation holding

federally issued operating authority in MC–233595

to provide charter and special operations between

points in the United States. It conducts limited

charter and tour services which are incidental to its

school transportation operation based in

Pennsylvania, and which extend only to points in

immediately adjacent States.

3 VIP is a Delaware corporation holding federally

issued operating authority in MC–277612 to

provide charter and special operations and contract

carrier services between points in the United States.

The actual operations of VIP and its predecessor

company involve primarily vacation charters and

organized tours beginning and ending in southern

California and extending to points in California and

immediately adjacent States.

4CAC is a Delaware corporation holding federally

issued operating authority in MC–330527 to

provide charter and special operations between

points in the United States. The operations of CAC

and its predecessor company historically have

resembled those of VIP.

1Petitioner’s initial filing on March 24, 2000,

lacked necessary zip code and station information.

A complete petition was not obtained until April

24, 2000. Accordingly, we have treated that date as

the actual filing date and the dates for issuance of

a final decision and for the filing of any offers of

financial assistance in this matter have been

extended, respectively to August 12 and August 22,

2000.

ACTION: Notice tentatively approving

finance transaction.

SUMMARY: Global Passenger Services,

L.L.C. (Global), Student Transportation

of America, Inc. (STA), and Travelways,

Inc. (Travelways) (collectively,

applicants), noncarriers, filed an

application under 49 U.S.C. 14303 for

Global to acquire indirect control and

STA to acquire direct control of one

motor passenger carrier, Davis Bus

Lines, Inc. (Davis), and for Global to

acquire indirect control and Travelways

to acquire direct control of two motor

passenger carriers, VIP Tours & Charters

Sightseeing Corporation (VIP) and

Coach America Corporation (CAC).

Persons wishing to oppose the

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 June

12, 2000. Applicants may file a reply by

June 27, 2000. If no comments are filed

by June 12, 2000, this notice is effective

on that date.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10

copies of any comments referring to STB

Docket No. MC–F–20966 to: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, send one copy of

comments to applicants’ representative:

Mark J. Andrews, Barnes & Thornburg,

1401 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 500,

Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beryl Gordon, (202) 565–1600. [TDD for

the hearing impaired: 1–800–877–8339.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Global, a

Delaware limited liability company,

indirectly controls 16 motor passenger

carriers and holds majority stock

interest in STA and Travelways.1 The

direct control of the 16 motor passenger

carriers is divided between STA and

Travelways, both Delaware

corporations. STA controls the Global

affiliates that provide primarily school

bus service and Travelways controls the

affiliates that provide primarily leisure

transportation and intercity airport

shuttle services, which is not involved

here. Davis 2 will be added to the STAcontrolled affiliates and VIP 3 and CAC4

will be added to the Travelwayscontrolled affiliates. According to

applicants, the acquisition of control of

these three additional motor passenger

carriers will permit a modest expansion

of Global’s service and client base in

two markets that it already serves—

school bus transportation in

Pennsylvania and leisure transportation

in southern California—without

reducing competition in either market.

Under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), we must

approve and authorize a transaction we

find 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.

Applicants have submitted the

information 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,

applicants have shown that the

proposed transaction will have a

positive effect on the adequacy of

transportation to the public and will

result in no increase in fixed charges

and no changes in employment. See 49

CFR 1182.2(a)(7). Additional

information, including a copy of the

application, may be obtained from

applicants’ representative.

On the basis of the application, we

find 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 website at

‘‘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 acquisition of control

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

June 12, 2000, 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—HMCE–20, 400

Virginia Avenue, S.W., Suite 600,

Washington, DC 20024; (2) the U.S.

Department of Justice, Antitrust

Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20530;

and (3) the U.S. Department of

Transportation, Office of the General

Counsel, 400 7th Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20590.

Decided: April 20, 2000.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice

Chairman Burkes, and Commissioner

Clyburn.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–10526 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. AB–501 (Sub–No. 3X)]

Central of Tennessee Railway and

Navigation Company, Incorporated—

Discontinuance of Service

Exemption—In Bastrop, Burnet, Lee,

Llano, Travis and Williamson Counties,

TX

On March 24, 2000 1, Central of

Tennessee Railway and Navigation

Company, Incorporated, d.b.a. The

Longhorn Railway Company

(Longhorn), filed with the Surface

Transportation Board (Board) a petition

under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption

from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903