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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Notices 56209 

1Sound Transit should have sought acquisition 

authority (accompanied by any motion to dismiss 

it wished to file) for the Lakeview North Segment 

when it acquired it in September 2004. Sound 

Transit is cautioned in the future to seek authority 

at the time of the transaction. 

2For these reasons, Sound Transit has 

simultaneously filed a motion to dismiss the notice 

of exemption in this proceeding. The motion will 

be addressed in a subsequent Board decision. 

executed purchase and sale agreements 

with respect to both segments. Sound 

Transit explains that it acquired the 

Lakeview North Segment on September 

28, 2004,1 and that it plans to acquire 

the Lakeview South Segment on 

September 28, 2005. Sound Transit 

states that, pursuant to the purchase and 

sale agreements, BNSF initially retained 

an exclusive freight easement with 

respect to operation of freight trains on 

the two line segments. It adds, however, 

that BNSF subsequently transferred its 

freight common carrier easement with 

respect to both segments to the City of 

Tacoma, WA, d/b/a Tacoma Rail, 

subject to retained trackage rights along 

a portion of the line it conveyed to the 

City. City of Tacoma, Department of 

Public Utilities, Beltline Division, d/b/a 

Tacoma Rail or Tacoma Municipal 

Beltline or TMBL—Acquisition and 

Operation Exemption—Lakeview 

Subdivision, Quadlok-St. Clair and 

Belmore-Olympia Rail Lines in Pierce 

and Thurston Counties, WA, STB 

Finance Docket No. 34555 (STB served 

Oct. 19, 2004). Sound Transit indicates 

that it is acquiring the two line segments 

for the purpose of providing wholly 

intrastate commuter rail passenger 

operations, and that it will not be 

providing rail freight service over the 

lines.2

If the notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the 

proceeding 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. 34747, must be filed with 

the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 

K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each 

pleading must be served on Charles A. 

Spitulnik, McLeod, Watkinson & Miller, 

One Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 

800, Washington, DC 20001. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: September 16, 2005. 

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–18944 Filed 9–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P