Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Notices 57649

requested in the petition. Therefore, in view

of the need to allocate and prioritize

NHTSA’s limited resources to best

accomplish the agency’s safety mission, the

petition is denied.

[FR Doc. 00–24584 Filed 9–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–2000–7164; Notice 2]

Suzuki Motor Corporation; Denial of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Suzuki Motor Corporation of

Hamamatsu, Japan, has determined that

it manufactured 1,595 vehicles that fail

to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225,

‘‘Child Restraint Anchorage Systems,’’

and has filed an appropriate report

pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ‘‘Defect

and Noncompliance Reports.’’ Suzuki

has also applied to be exempted from

the notification and remedy

requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301—

‘‘Motor Vehicle Safety’’ on the basis that

the noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on April 25, 2000 in the

Federal Register (65 FR 24253), with a

30-day comment period. We received no

comments.

FMVSS No. 225, S4.1, requires that:

Each tether anchorage and each child

restraint anchorage system installed, either

voluntarily or pursuant to this standard, in

any new vehicle manufactured on or after

September 1, 1999, shall comply with the

configuration, location, marking and strength

requirements of this standard. The vehicle

shall be delivered with written information,

in English, on how to appropriately use those

anchorages and systems.

FMVSS No. 225, S12, requires that:

The vehicle must provide written

instructions, in English, for using the tether

anchorages and the child restraint anchorage

system in the vehicle. If the vehicle has an

owner’s manual, the instructions must be in

that manual. The instructions shall:

(a) Indicate which seating positions in the

vehicle are equipped with tether anchorages

and child restraint anchorage systems;

(b) In the case of vehicles required to be

marked as specified in paragraphs S4.1,

S9.5(a), or S15.4, explain the meaning of

markings provided to locate the lower

anchorages of child restraint anchorage

systems; and

(c) Include instructions that provide a stepby-step procedure, including diagrams, for

properly attaching a child restraint system’s

tether strap to the tether anchorages.

At the start of production for the 2000

model year, Suzuki began installing

user-ready tether anchorages as standard

equipment in Suzuki Swift vehicles.

Due to an oversight, however, Suzuki

neglected to update the Suzuki Swift

owner’s manual in conjunction with

this production change. As a result, the

owner’s manuals for 1,595 Suzuki Swift

vehicles manufactured between August

1999 and February 2000, and shipped

prior to March 2000, do not comply

with the information requirements in

FMVSS No. 225.

Suzuki supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

‘‘The vehicle owner’s manual for the

subject Suzuki Swift vehicles contains the

following text relating to the use of child

restraint systems that require use of a top

tether:

Some child restraint systems require the

use of a top strap. If you use such a restraint

system and your vehicle is not equipped with

the top tether strap anchor bracket, have your

dealer install the top strap anchor bracket, or

contact your dealer for instructions on how

to install the anchor bracket.

In addition to the text message, the owner’s

manual contains two illustrations (one for the

hatchback model and one for the sedan

model) showing a child restraint system

positioned at one of the rear seating

positions, with its tether strap attached to the

tether anchorage.

Although the Swift owner’s manual does

not mention that user-ready tether

anchorages are provided as standard

equipment and does not show all of the

seating positions that are equipped with a

tether anchorage, the illustrations in the

manual do show the tether anchorage

location for one of the rear seating positions.

Suzuki believes that vehicle owners will

assume, based on the illustrations, that

anchorages are provided for both rear seating

positions. In addition, when you look at the

actual vehicle, it is obvious that user-ready

anchorages are provided as standard

equipment for both rear seating positions.

Since the tether anchorages are easily

recognizable in the vehicle, Suzuki believes

that failure to fully illustrate the location of

each tether anchorage in the vehicle owner’s

manual is inconsequential.

The Swift owner’s manual also does not

fully comply with the requirement to ‘‘* * *

provide a step-by-step procedure, including

diagrams, for properly attaching a child

restraint system to the tether

anchorages* * *.’’ Typically, because there

are differences in child restraint system

design, the vehicle owner’s manual can only

provide general instructions to hook the

tether strap hook into the anchor bracket and

tighten the tether strap. These steps are

somewhat obvious, and should be intuitively

understood by vehicle owners.

Also, each child restraint system is

required to be accompanied with its own

installation instructions. S5.6.1 of FMVSS

No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, requires

that each child restraint system ‘‘* * * must

be accompanied by printed installation

instructions in the English language that

provide a step-by-step procedure, including

diagrams, for installing the system in motor

vehicles * * *.’’. Suzuki believes that

vehicle owners rely on the installation

instructions provided with the child restraint

system, rather than those provided in the

vehicle owner’s manual, for information

about how to install the child restraint

system in their vehicle. As a result, Suzuki

believes that failure to provide a step-by-step

procedure, in the vehicle owner’s manual, for

attaching a child restraint system to the

vehicle’s tether anchorages is

inconsequential to safety.’’

We are denying Suzuki’s application

for the following reasons:

Suzuki failed to adhere to S4.1 of

FMVSS No. 225, which requires that

manufacturers shall specify tether

anchorage configurations and locations

in their vehicles along with written

information on how to use those

anchorages and systems appropriately.

Suzuki also failed to meet the

requirements of S12(a) and (c) of

FMVSS No. 225, which specify that the

information provided in the vehicle

owner’s manual must (a) indicate which

seating positions in the vehicle are

equipped with tether anchorages and (b)

include instructions that provide stepby-step procedures, and diagrams for

properly attaching a child restraint

system’s tether strap to the tether

anchorages. Suzuki provides no excuse

for its oversight in neglecting to update

the 2000 model year Suzuki Swift

owner’s manual with the required

information.

The agency does not agree with

Suzuki that illustrating one child

restraint system positioned at only one

of the two rear seating positions, with

its tether strap attached to the tether

anchorage sufficiently demonstrates to

the owner that in fact two rear seating

positions are available for child

restraints with tether installations. The

agency further disagrees with Suzuki’s

assumption that the steps necessary for

hooking the tether strap to the anchor

bracket in the vehicle will be

‘‘intuitively’’ understood by vehicle

owners. Child restraint systems with a

top tether strap have only recently been

introduced for use in this country, and

requirements for tether anchorages have

only applied to vehicles manufactured

after September 1, 1999. Therefore, it is

not likely that vehicle owners will be

familiar with this new child restraint

system feature on the child seat itself or

its proper connection to the vehicle. The

use of a top tether decreases the motion

of a child restraint in a forward crash

and therefore reduces the likelihood

that the occupant child’s head will

impact hard interior surfaces of the

57650 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Notices

1 Documents transmitted by facsimile (FAX) or

electronic mail (e-mail) will not be accepted.

2FASB statements can be obtained by contacting

the FASB of the Financial Accounting Foundation

at 401 Merritt 7, P.O. Box 5116, Norwalk,

Connecticut 06856–5116. Information about FASB

statements can be found on the internet at: http:/

/www.rutgers.edu/accounting/raw/fasb.

3The STB is required by statute to ‘‘annually

determine which rail carriers are earning adequate

revenues.’’ 49 U.S.C. 10704(a)(3).

4See 49 CFR Part 1201 Instruction 1–9(f).

vehicle; hence, proper use of this feature

improves the child occupant’s

protection.

As stated above, vehicle owners are

not likely to be familiar with the

purpose, use, or installation of top

tethers in their vehicles, which may in

some instances contribute to their

misuse or nonuse of the top tether

entirely when proper use and

installation information is not provided.

This may be especially true when

specific information regarding the

vehicle’s tether anchor brackets is not

made obvious to them when referring to

their vehicle owner’s manual for

instruction.

Studies show that there is significant

misuse of child restraint systems in this

country. In part, this can be attributed

to parents and care givers who

improperly install child restraints in

their vehicles. It is imperative that

proper child restraint use and

installation instructions be provided in

a ‘‘step-by-step’’ fashion, particularly

when new features and/or installation

requirements are introduced, in as many

resources as possible. Therefore, the

agency cannot emphasize enough the

importance of providing parents and

care givers with specific information

regarding proper child restraint use and

installation.

The agency also does not agree with

Suzuki’s claim that because of

differences in child restraint system

designs, a vehicle owner’s manual can

only provide ‘‘general instructions.’’ We

note that we denied a petition filed by

the Alliance of Automobile

Manufacturers (Alliance) on April 17,

1999, which asked the agency to delete

the requirement in FMVSS No. 225 that

vehicle manufacturers provide ‘‘step-bystep’’ instructions, including diagrams,

for properly attaching a child restraint

tether hook to the vehicle anchor. The

agency denied this request on August

31, 1999, stating that ‘‘* * * Standard

No. 213 specifies the configuration and

geometry of the tether hook * * *’’

which would enable vehicle

manufacturers to develop their written

instructions with the tether hook design

in mind (64 FR 47566). The Alliance

submitted a subsequent petition for

reconsideration request on October 15,

1999, which requested that the agency

defer the effective date on the detailed

instruction requirement one year from

September 1, 1999. The agency denied

this request in a notice published July

31, 2000 (65 FR 46628).

Therefore, in consideration of the

foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the

applicant has not met its burden of

persuasion that the noncompliance it

describes is inconsequential to motor

vehicle safety, and it should not be

exempted from the notification and

remedy requirements of the statute.

Accordingly, its application is hereby

denied.

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

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

501.8.

Issued on: September 19, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–24551 Filed 9–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[STB Ex Parte No. 634]

Consolidated Railroad Reporting

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board,

DOT.

ACTION: Proposal to Require

Consolidated Financial Reporting by

Commonly Controlled Railroads.

SUMMARY: The Board intends, consistent

with Financial Accounting Standards

Board (FASB) Statement No. 94, to

require consolidated reporting by

commonly controlled U.S. railroads and

their U.S. railroad-related affiliates.

DATES: Carriers and other interested

parties may submit comments by

October 25, 2000.

ADDRESSES: An original plus 10 copies

of all comments, referring to STB Ex

Parte No. 634, must be sent to: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Unit, Attn: STB

Ex Parte No. 634, 1925 K Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20423–0001. In

addition, parties must submit to the

Board, on 3.5-inch IBM-compatible

floppy diskettes (in, or convertible by

and into, WordPerfect 9.0 format), an

electronic copy of each such paper

document. The diskettes shall be clearly

labeled with the filer’s name and the

docket number of this proceeding, STB

Ex Parte No. 634. Any party may seek

a waiver from the electronic submission

requirement.1

Copies of the written comments will

be available from the Board’s contractor,

Da ̄-To-Da ̄ Office Solutions, 1925 K

Street, NW, Room 405, Washington, DC.

20423–0001, phone (202) 466–5530. The

comments will also be available for

viewing and self copying in the Board’s

Microfilm Unit, Room 755. All

pleadings submitted will be posted on

the Board’s website (www.stb.dot.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

A. Aguiar, (202) 565–1527. [Assistance

for the hearing impaired is available

through TDD services: 1–800–877–

8339.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FASB is

the organization responsible for the

development of financial accounting

standards. FASB issues statements of

financial accounting standards that

provide guidance on proper accounting

procedures.2 Those pronouncements

typically become ‘‘Generally Accepted

Accounting Principles’’ or ‘‘GAAP.’’ The

Board, like most regulatory agencies,

generally follows GAAP.

FASB No. 94, Consolidation of All

Majority-owned Subsidiaries, which was

issued in 1987, requires the preparer of

financial statements to use consolidated

reporting for all majority-owned

subsidiaries unless control is temporary

or does not rest with the majority

owner. In Supplemental Reporting of

Information for Revenue Adequacy, 5

I.C.C.2d 65 (1988) (Supplemental

Reporting), our predecessor, the

Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC),

required railroads to use consolidated

reporting for all railroad and railroadrelated activities in conformance with

GAAP for ‘‘revenue adequacy’’

purposes.3 While Supplemental

Reporting was primarily concerned with

gathering data for the annual railroad

revenue adequacy determination, the

ICC did not specifically limit adoption

of consolidated reporting to only that

issue. However, as a practical matter,

over the past decade that decision has

been interpreted to require mandatory

consolidated reporting only for Annual

Report Form R–1, Schedule 250 (related

to revenue adequacy filings), and to

permit—but not require—consolidated

reporting for other R–1 schedules and

reports filed with the agency.4

We believe that we should adopt

FASB No. 94 (with some modifications)

and require reporting of all railroad and

railroad-related activities on a

consolidated basis for all regulatory

purposes. We believe that consolidated

data would provide more meaningful

and accurate information on major rail

systems operating in the United States.

Indeed, consolidated financial

statements are generally recognized as

being more meaningful than the