Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices 30809

railroads that have already taken the

lead on this issue by having in effect a

similar or comparable requirement:

Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Conrail,

CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Union

Pacific.

FRA may modify Safety Advisory 98–

2, issue additional safety advisories, or

take other appropriate necessary action

to ensure the highest level of safety on

the Nation’s railroads.

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 1, 1998.

George Gavalla,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety.

[FR Doc. 98–14975 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–97–3194; Notice 2]

Cosco, Inc.; Grant of Application for

Decision of Inconsequential

Noncompliance

Cosco, Incorporated of Columbus,

Indiana, has determined that

approximately 82,176 child restraint

systems fail to comply with 49 CFR

571.213, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ‘‘Child

Restraint Systems,’’ and has filed an

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR

part 573, ‘‘Defects and Noncompliance

Reports.’’ Cosco 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, with a 30-day comment

period, on February 20, 1998, in the

Federal Register (63 FR 8735). NHTSA

received no comments.

FMVSS No. 213, paragraph S5.7,

requires that each material used in a

child restraint system shall conform to

the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No.

302, ‘‘Flammability of Interior

Materials.’’ This requires that any

material that does not adhere to other

material(s) at every point of contact

shall meet the burn rate requirements of

S4.3 when tested separately. Materials

are to be tested as a composite only if

the material adheres to other material(s)

at every point of contact.

Following compliance tests

conducted by the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Cosco has confirmed through its

investigation that it manufactured and

distributed a number of Touriva

convertible child restraint systems

whose covers incorporate an additional

polyester fiberfill pillow which does not

meet the flammability requirements of

FMVSS Nos. 213 and 302. The Cosco

child restraints affected and the dates of

production are as follows: Touriva

Overhead Shield Accu-Just (Model 02–

025; 3/95 to 6/96); Touriva Luxury

Overhead Shield AccuJust (Model 02–

045; 2/95 to 6/96); Touriva Overhead

Shield (Model 02–034; 4/94 to 6/96);

Touriva Overhead Shield Accu-Just

(Model 02–054; 4/94 to 6/96); Touriva 5

point (Model 02–564; 3/95 to 6/96);

Touriva Overhead Shield (Model 02–

055; 1/95 to 6/96); Touriva Luxury

Overhead Shield (Model 02–065; 3/95 to

6/96); Olympian Overhead Shield

(Model 02–257; 6/96); Touriva 5 point

(Model 02–597; 6/96); Touriva Safe TShield (Model 02–096; 4/96 to 6/96);

and Touriva Overhead Shield Accu-Just

(Model 02–064;1/95 to 6/96). All of the

models listed are convertible child

restraints incorporating the same shell

design and a pillow in the head contact

area, but the different models are a

combination of restraint types, cover

designs, and options. In each of the

noncompliant models, a polyester

fiberfill is utilized to form the pillow in

the head area of the cover, and it is this

polyester fiberfill material which

exceeded the 4 inches per minute

maximum burn rate when tested in

accordance with S4 of FMVSS No. 302.

In its investigation, Cosco found burn

rates ranging from 17.3 inches per

minute to 39.5 inches per minute in six

tests conducted on two different

samples of the polyester fiberfill in

question.

Cosco supports its application for

inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

As the non-complying polyester fiberfill is

incorporated into a pillow located in the

child restraint near the top of the pad; it is

a vertical surface. This configuration makes

the likelihood of ignition from cigarettes or

any other similar ignition source virtually

nil.

Complying materials encase the relatively

small amount of non-complying polyester

fiberfill. The amount of potentially noncomplying polyester fiberfill incorporated in

the pillow is 0.0951 pounds. The various

Touriva convertible child restraints range in

weight from approximately eight to ten

pounds. This means that approximately one

percent of the child restraint is potentially

non-complying. Furthermore, as is confirmed

in the NHTSA tests which identified the noncomplying polyester fiberfill, the material

encompassing the non-complying polyester

fiberfill complies with the FMVSS 302

Flammability Standard. This includes the

fabric covering the surface of the pad, the

polyurethane foam in the pad, the fabric

backing of the pad, and the polypropylene

shell itself. Thus, the only way the noncomplying fiberfill would be exposed to a

source of ignition that has not already

consumed the child restraint is if the cover

of the pillow is torn, exposing the fiberfill,

and an ignition source then finds its way to

this exposed fiberfill. The probability of such

a sequence of events occurring is virtually

nil. These facts make the potential of the

non-complying polyester fiberfill in the

pillow contributing to an injury or death

even less likely.

Cosco has no reports of the burning of a

cover of one of the suspect models (or any

other child restraint system cover). All

occupant protection studies which Cosco has

reviewed, indicate an almost infinitesimal

risk of injury or death by vehicle fires in

total, at least in collisions. Cosco is unaware

of any data on fires of the interior of vehicles

unrelated to collisions.

The agency has reviewed Cosco’s

application and has decided that the

noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety. NHTSA agrees

with Cosco that the noncompliant

polyester fiberfill material incorporated

in the pillow of noncompliant Touriva

child restraint systems is unlikely to

pose a flammability risk due to the

unlikelihood of exposure to an ignition

source given the pillow’s vertical

orientation on the child restraint, the

fact that the noncompliant material is

fully encased by materials which

comply with the flammability

requirements of FMVSS No. 302, and

the very limited quantity of

noncompliant material used in

construction of the child restraint.

The agency granted an application for

inconsequential noncompliance

submitted by PACCAR, 57 FR 45868

(October 5, 1992), in which the

circumstances were analogous to those

presented in the Cosco application.

PACCAR manufactured mattresses for

the sleeper areas of certain truck

tractors. A small portion of the material

used in the construction of the

mattresses, and subject to the

requirements of FMVSS No. 302, failed

the burn rate test. The agency

determined that ignition of the

noncompliant material was unlikely

and, due to the small volume of the

material, would not pose the threat of a

serious fire if ignited. As a result of this

analysis, the PACCAR petition was

granted.

NHTSA disagrees with Cosco’s

assertion that the risk of injury or death

in vehicle fires due to collisions is

‘‘infinitesimal.’’ Nevertheless, although

it is possible that fuel-fed fires from

vehicle crashes could consume a

vehicle’s interior, the flammability of

the polyester fiberfill materials would

be irrelevant to the severity of such a

fire and to the potential injuries

incurred by a child.
30810 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices

1 GWC certifies that the projected revenues do not

exceed those that would qualify as a Class III rail

carrier. GWC also certifies that the projected annual

revenue will not exceed $5 million.

NHTSA’s evaluation of the

consequentiality of this noncompliance

should not be interpreted as a

diminution of the agency’s concern for

child safety. Rather, it represents

NHTSA’s assessment of the gravity of

the noncompliance based upon the

likely consequences. Ultimately, the

issue is whether this particular

noncompliance is likely to increase the

risk to safety. Although empirical

results are not determinative, the

absence of any reports of fires

originating in these child restraints

supports the agency’s decision that the

noncompliance does not have a

consequential effect on safety.

For the above reasons, the agency has

decided that Cosco has met its burden

of persuasion that the noncompliance at

issue here is inconsequential to motor

vehicle safety and its application is

granted. Accordingly, Cosco is hereby

exempted from the notification and

remedy provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118

and 30120.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118(d), 30120(h)

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

501.8.

Issued on: May 29, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–15037 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33597]

Great Western Railway of Colorado,

LLC—Acquisition and Operation

Exemption—Great Western Lines, LLC

Great Western Railway of Colorado,

LLC (GWC), a Class III rail carrier, has

filed a verified notice of exemption to

acquire approximately 23 miles of rail

line from Great Western Lines, LLC. 1

The line involved in the acquisition

transaction is located in Colorado as

follows: (1) between milepost 76.5, at

Fort Collins, and milepost 98.9 at

Greeley; and (2) the Burlington Northern

Railroad Company’s former interchange

track at Loveland, between the end of

the track and a point 10 feet south of

Tenth Street in Loveland.

The transaction was to be

consummated on or shortly after May

14, 1998, the effective date of the

exemption.

If this 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 does not

automatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33597, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on Karl Morell,

Esq., BALL JANIK LLP, 1455 F Street,

N.W., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: June 2, 1998.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–15066 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33598]

OmniTRAX, Inc.—Control Exemption—

Northern Ohio & Western Railway, LLC

OmniTRAX, Inc. (OmniTRAX), a

noncarrier holding company has filed a

notice of exemption to control Northern

Ohio & Western Railway, LLC (NOW), a

Class III rail carrier. OmniTRAX is

proposing to acquire all of the issued

and outstanding stock of NOW.

The transaction was scheduled to be

consummated on May 14, 1998, the

effective date of the exemption.

Applicant currently controls 9 Class

III railroad subsidiary operating in 7

states: Central Kansas Railway LLC and

Kansas Southwestern Railway LLC, in

Kansas; Chicago Rail Link LLC and

Manufacturers’ Junction Railway LLC,

in Illinois; Georgia Woodlands Railroad

LLC, in Georgia; Great Western Railway

of Colorado LLC, in Colorado; Great

Western Railway of Iowa LLC, in Iowa;

Newburgh and South Shore Railroad

Limited, in Ohio; and Panhandle

Northern Railroad LLC, in Texas.

OmniTRAX states that: (1) the

railroads do not connect with each other

or any railroad in their corporate family;

(ii) the acquisition of control is not part

of a series of anticipated transactions

that would connect the ten railroads

with each other or any railroad in their

corporate family; and (iii) the

transaction does not involve a Class I

carrier. Therefore, the transaction is

exempt from the prior approval

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323. See 49

CFR 1180.2(d)(2).

Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board

may not use its exemption authority to

relieve a rail carrier of its statutory

obligation to protect the interests of its

employees. Section 11326(c), however,

does not provide for labor protection for

transactions under sections 11324 and

11325 that involve only Class III rail

carriers. Because this transaction

involves Class III rail carriers only, the

Board, under the statute, may not

impose labor protective conditions for

this transaction.

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. 33598, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on Karl Morell,

Esq., BALL JANIK LLP 1455 F Street,

N.W., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: June 2, 1998.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–15065 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33611]

Union Pacific Railroad Company—

Petition for Declaratory Order—Former

Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Line

Between Jude and Ogden Junction, TX

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Institution of declaratory order

proceeding; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation

Board (Board) is instituting a

declaratory order proceeding and

requesting comments on the petition of

the Union Pacific Railroad Company

(UP), for an order declaring that the

Board lacks authority under 49 U.S.C.