Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Notices 56207 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). The 

Statement may also be found at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC on September 

19, 2005. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. 05–19093 Filed 9–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Notice Publishing Substantive Criteria 

for Evaluation of Applications under 

the Railroad Rehabilitation and 

Improvement Financing Program 

(RRIF) 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Evaluation Criteria for 

RRIF Program. 

SUMMARY: FRA is publishing this notice 

in response to Congressional direction 

contained in section 9003(j) of the 

recently enacted Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) 

requesting the agency to identify the 

substantive criteria and standards used 

by the DOT/FRA to determine whether 

to approve or disapprove applications 

submitted under the RRIF Program. This 

information is being provided by 

publication in the Federal Register and 

posting on the DOT/FRA website, as 

required by the statute. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Pomponio, Director, Office of 

Freight Programs, Federal Railroad 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: 202–493–6051, e-mail: 

Joseph.Pomponio@fra.dot.gov. Cynthia 

Walters, Attorney, Office of Chief 

Counsel, Federal Railroad 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590. 

Telelphone 202–493–6064, e-mail: 

Cynthia.Walters@fra.dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Congress recently amended sections 

502 and 503 of the Railroad 

Revitalization and Regulatory Reform 

Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 821 et seq.), in 

SAFETEA–LU (Pub. L. 109–59). These 

amendments address DOT’s RRIF 

program, which authorizes the Secretary 

of Transportation (Secretary) to disburse 

money through direct loans and loan 

guarantees to various entities. RRIF 

loans and loan guarantees are used to 

acquire, improve or rehabilitate 

intermodal or rail equipment and 

facilities, refinance debt that was 

undertaken for such purposes, or to 

develop or establish new rail or 

intermodal facilities. The SAFETEA–LU 

amendments expand the total available 

program obligations from $3.5 billion to 

$35 billion and make several other 

program changes. The Secretary’s 

authority to administer this program has 

been delegated to the Administrator of 

FRA (49 CFR sections 1.49(t) and 260.1, 

Program Authority). 

In addition to the RRIF program 

changes, SAFETEA–LU requires the 

Department, within thirty days after 

enactment of the statute, to publish in 

the Federal Register and post on the 

Department’s Web site the substantive 

criteria and standards used by the 

Secretary to determine whether 

applications will be approved or 

disapproved for RRIF loans. The 

substantive criteria responsive to the 

request of Congress are the subject of 

this notice and are described below. 

FRA’s Substantive Criteria for 

Evaluation of RRIF Applications 

FRA is providing the criteria and 

standards used to determine whether to 

approve or disapprove an application 

submitted under section 502 of the 

Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory 

Reform Act of 1976. These criteria are 

drawn from the legislation authorizing 

the RRIF program (45 U.S.C. 821 et seq.) 

and program implementing regulations 

(49 CFR part 260). The words used 

below to describe the criteria differ from 

the statute and the regulations only for 

purposes of brevity. This notice does 

not contain any new criteria or impose 

any new legal requirements or have any 

legal effect other than to satisfy the 

mandate from Congress to issue this 

notice. Determinations are made based 

on the following criteria and standards, 

as more fully set forth in the statute or 

the regulations, evaluated individually 

and considered collectively. 

• The statutory eligibility of the 

applicant and the project ( 49 CFR 

260.3, definition of applicant and 49 

CFR 260.5, eligible purposes); 

• The creditworthiness of the project, 

including the present and probable 

demand for rail services and a 

reasonable likelihood that the loan will 

be repaid on a timely basis. (49 CFR part 

260, Subpart B–FRA policies and 

procedures for Evaluating Applications 

for Financial Assistance) 

• The extent to which the project will 

enhance safety. (49 CFR 260.7(a)) 

• The significance of the project on a 

local, regional, or national level in terms 

of generating economic benefits and 

improving the railroad transportation 

system. (49 CFR 260.7(c)) 

• The improvement to the 

environment that is expected to result 

directly or indirectly by the 

implementation of the project. (49 CFR 

260.7(b)) and 

• The improvement in service or 

capacity in the railroad transportation 

system or the reduction in service-or 

capacity-related problems that is 

expected to result directly or indirectly 

from the implementation of the project 

(45 U.S.C. 822(c)) 

Issued in Washington, DC on September 

19, 2005. 

Joseph H. Boardman, 

Federal Railroad Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–19094 Filed 9–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21859; Notice 2] 

Toyota Motor North America, Inc., 

Denial of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Toyota Motor North America (Toyota) 

has determined that certain model year 

2003 through 2005 vehicles that it 

produced do not comply with S5(c)(2) 

of 49 CFR 571.225, Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

225, ‘‘Child restraint anchorage 

systems.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30118(d) and 30120(h), Toyota has 

petitioned for a determination that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and has filed an 

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 

Part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance 

Reports.’’ Notice of receipt of the 

petition was published, with a 30 day 

comment period, on July 19, 2005 in the 

Federal Register (70 FR 41476). NHTSA 

received one comment, from Advocates 

for Highway and Auto Safety 

(Advocates). 

Affected are a total of approximately 

156,555 model year 2003 to 2005 Toyota 

56208 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Notices 

Tundra access cab vehicles produced 

between September 1, 2002 and April 

22, 2005. S5(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 225 

requires each vehicle that 

(i) Has a rear designated seating position 

and meets the conditions in S4.5.4.1(b) of 

Standard No. 208 * * * and, (ii) Has an air 

bag on-off switch meeting the requirements 

of S4.5.4 of Standard 208 * * * shall have 

a child restraint anchorage system for a 

designated passenger seating position in the 

front seat, instead of a child restraint 

anchorage system that is required for the rear 

seat * * *. 

The subject vehicles do not have a child 

restraint lower anchorage in the front 

seat as required by S5(c)(2). 

Toyota believes that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. Toyota 

states that it considered whether rearfacing child restraints could be used in 

the noncompliant vehicles, and ‘‘is 

unaware of any rear-facing child 

restraints that require lower anchorages 

in the vehicle.’’ Toyota further states, 

Most, if not all rear facing child restraints 

(even those with lower anchorage systems), 

have belt paths which allow the child 

restraint to be secured properly in the front 

passenger seat of the subject vehicles 

utilizing the front passenger seatbelt. We also 

note that child restraint manufacturers 

provide instructions with their child seats 

(even lower anchorage equipped child seats) 

on how to install their restraint with the 

seatbelt. In addition, all Toyota Tundra 

vehicles provide instructions on how to 

install child restraints with the seatbelt. 

The public comment by Advocates in 

response to the Federal Register notice 

states that Toyota’s rationale ‘‘does not 

obviate the fact that front passenger 

seating positions were required to be 

equipped with LATCH [lower anchors 

and tethers for children] because 

LATCH systems more readily ensure the 

proper installation of child restraints 

and, therefore, are safer than using 

vehicle seat belts,’’ as well as being 

likely to lead to increased child restraint 

use due to ease of use. 

NHTSA agrees with Advocates that 

the absence of LATCH anchorages 

compromises the overall level of safety 

of child restraints. FMVSS No. 225 

requires a simple, uniform system for 

installing child restraints that increases 

the likelihood of proper installation. 

Prior to FMVSS No. 225 many child 

restraints were improperly installed, 

increasing the safety risk to children 

riding in the improperly installed child 

restraints. Therefore, it is reasonable to 

conclude that noncompliant vehicles do 

not offer the same level of safety as 

compliant vehicles because of the 

increased risk of improper child 

restraint installation. 

Toyota further points out that model 

year 2000 to 2002 Tundra access cab 

vehicles have a front passenger airbag 

on-off switch as standard equipment but 

not lower anchorage system because 

they were produced prior to the 

effective date of the FMVSS No. 225 

lower anchorage requirement with 

which the subject vehicles noncomply. 

Toyota asserts that, 

considering child restraint installation in 

the front passenger seat, the 2003–2005 MY 

vehicles (subject vehicles) are no different 

than the 2000–02 MY vehicles and further, it 

follows that the subject vehicles are no less 

safe than the 2000–02 MY vehicles. 

Advocates responds by pointing out 

that the promulgation of FMVSS No. 

225 was justified by the additional 

safety it would provide. ‘‘[F]ewer child 

deaths and many fewer injuries are 

expected to result from widespread use 

of the LATCH system. * * * [and] it 

will result in far fewer children being 

exposed to the risk of riding in an 

improperly installed child restraint.’’

NHTSA agrees with Advocates that the 

noncompliant vehicles offer a lower 

level of child passenger safety than 

those which comply with the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 225, which 

is why the standard was promulgated. 

Toyota further states that it 

considered 

whether a lower anchorage child restraint 

can be mistakenly installed in the front 

passenger seat attempting to utilize the lower 

anchorage. Upon investigating the seat bight 

of the subject vehicles, we believe a current 

vehicle owner or subsequent owner could 

easily observe that no lower anchorage bars 

exist. We would also note that there are no 

portions of the seat frame within the seat 

bight of the front passenger seat that may be 

mistaken for lower anchorage bars. 

In response to this assertion, 

Advocates states that it is ‘‘beside the 

point that vehicle owners will not 

mistakenly attempt to use the 

nonexistent LATCH system * * * The 

issue is that the noncompliance * * * 

denies owners and parents the safer 

LATCH alternative that is required by 

law.’’

NHTSA agrees that this argument by 

Toyota is beside the point in terms of 

consequentiality to safety. Additionally, 

through NHTSA’s child passenger safety 

working group, many examples of 

misuse have been presented. Parents 

who mistakenly believe their vehicles 

have LATCH (pre-2002 vehicles) have 

used seatbelt latch plates, drilled holes 

through the nylon webbing of the 

seatbelt or seatbelt buckle stalk, and 

attached seats to the seat support 

structure or other places within the 

vehicle that can be hooked to, all in 

attempts to secure the child restraint 

using the LATCH system. In this 

particular case, the owner’s manual for 

the Toyota Tundra provides instruction 

for installing a child restraint using the 

LATCH system, even though one is not 

available. A parent might take an 

improper action, as described 

previously, in an attempt to ‘‘find’’ the 

LATCH system or ‘‘create’’ a LATCH 

system, resulting in the improper 

installation of the child restraint. 

Therefore, the lack of the required 

LATCH system is consequential to 

safety. 

Finally, Toyota notes that it has not 

received customer complaints regarding 

the absence of a front passenger seat 

child restraint lower anchorage system, 

nor has it received any reports of a 

crash, injury or fatality due to this 

noncompliance. NHTSA does not 

consider the absence of these reports to 

be compelling evidence of the 

inconsequentiality of this 

noncompliance to safety. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that the petitioner 

has not met its burden of persuasion 

that the noncompliance described is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, Toyota’s petition is hereby 

denied. 

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

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8). 

Issued on: September 19, 2005. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle 

Safety. 

[FR Doc. 05–19092 Filed 9–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 34747] 

Central Puget Sound Regional Transit 

Authority—Acquisition Exemption—

BNSF Railway Company 

The Central Puget Sound Regional 

Transit Authority (Sound Transit), a 

noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of 

exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to 

acquire from BNSF Railway Company 

(BNSF) two lines of railroad, totaling 

approximately 22.35 miles on the 

Lakeview Subdivision located in Pierce 

County, WA. The rail lines are as 

follows: (1) The Lakeview North 

Segment, between milepost 2.15 in 

Tacoma and milepost 8.9 in Lakeview, 

and (2) the Lakeview South Segment, 

between milepost 8.9 in Lakeview and 

milepost 24.5 in Nisqually. 

At the time of filing of the verified 

notice, Sound Transit and BNSF had