Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 1996 / Notices 2329

1 The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–

88, 109 Stat. 803 (the Act), which was enacted on

December 29, 1995, and took effect on January 1,

1996, abolished the Interstate Commerce

Commission (ICC) and transferred certain functions

and proceedings to the Surface Transportation

Board (Board). Section 204(b)(1) of the Act

provides, in general, that proceedings pending

before the ICC on the effective date of that

legislation shall be decided under the law in effect

prior to January 1, 1996, insofar as they involve

functions retained by the Act. This notice relates to

a proceeding that was pending with the ICC prior

to January 1, 1996, and to functions that are subject

to Board jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10901.

Therefore, this notice applies the law in effect prior

to the Act.

1The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–

88, 109 Stat. 803 (the Act), which was enacted on

December 29, 1995, and took effect on January 1,

1996, abolished the Interstate Commerce

Commission (ICC) and transferred certain functions

and proceedings to the Surface Transportation

Board (Board). Section 204(b)(1) of the Act

provides, in general, that proceedings pending

before the ICC on the effective date of that

legislation shall be decided under the law in effect

prior to January 1, 1996, insofar as they involve

functions retained by the Act. This notice relates to

a proceeding that was pending with the ICC prior

to January 1, 1996, and to functions that are subject

to Board jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10901.

Therefore, this notice applies to the law in effect

prior to the Act, and citations are to the former

sections of the statute, unless otherwise indicated.

2Pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.32(b), this transaction

could not actually be consummated until

effectiveness of the exemption on January 2, 1996—

7 days after the filing date of the notice.

1984 Honda Civic, and a 1984 Toyota

Tercel. These vehicles are considered

peers since they are of comparable size,

weight, and utility. In reviewing the

NCAP results, which provide

measurements of Head Injury Criteria

(HIC), chest g’s, and femur loads for

both driver and front passenger

dummies, there is no indication that the

Pulsar’s performance presents a greater

risk of injury or fatality to its occupants

than that of any of the peer vehicles.

The validity of NCAP test data in

assessing real-world crashworthiness of

motor vehicles is well established.

NHTSA’s December 1993 report to the

Congress on this matter presents the

results of detailed analyses that show

high correlations between NCAP test

results and real world accident data

contained in the NCSA’s individual

state accident investigation files, the

National Accident Sampling System

(NASS) data files, and the Fatal

Accident Reporting System (FARS) files.

FARS data accumulated from 1983

through 1994 for the 1983–1986 Pulsar

were reviewed and compared with

similar data for the Honda Civic/CRX

and Toyota Corolla of the same model

years. During that period, occupants of

1983–1986 model year Pulsars sustained

a total of 219 fatal injuries in head-on

crashes for the cumulative population of

196,600 vehicles. Of these, 72 percent

(157 fatalities) were sustained by the

driver, and the remaining 28 percent (62

fatalities) were sustained by passengers,

in most cases seated in the right front

position. These data do not support the

petitioner’s claim that the design of the

Pulsar floor pan exposes the front

passenger to a greater fatality risk than

the driver.

Fatality rates for the Pulsar, Corolla,

and Civic/CRX models were normalized

for the cumulative numbers of these

vehicles in service, and then compared.

This revealed that 544 fatalities were

sustained by occupants of the

population of 621,800 Corolla models,

and for the total population of 743,400

Honda Civic/CRX, 759 fatalities were

sustained. These data were analyzed by

comparing the respective numbers of

fatalities per 100,000 vehicles in service

for each model, for each year of

exposure. Although the Pulsar

demonstrated a slightly higher average

rate (10.86) for the twelve exposure

years than the Civic/CRX (9.49) or the

Corolla (8.53), there was no pattern of a

consistently higher annual rate for any

of the three models. These data do not

show that occupants of Pulsar vehicles

have been exposed to a greater historical

risk of fatality than occupants of these

peer vehicle models.

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA has concluded that there is no

reasonable possibility that an order for

the notification and remedy of a safetyrelated defect would be issued at the

conclusion of an investigation into the

performance of the floor pan installed in

the subject vehicles. Based on its

analysis of pertinent data, NHTSA could

find no support for the petition’s

contention that a safety-related defect

exists by virtue of the design or

performance of this component. Further

commitment of agency resources to

examine this issue does not appear to be

warranted. The petition is therefore

denied.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(a); delegations

of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: January 22, 1996.

Michael B. Brownlee,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Assurance.

[FR Doc. 96–1229 Filed 1–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

Surface Transportation Board 1

[Finance Docket No. 32793]

Naugatuck Railroad Company, Inc.;

Operation Exemption; The State of

Connecticut

Naugatuck Railroad Company, Inc.

(NAUG), has filed a notice of exemption

to operate 19.6 miles of rail line owned

by the State of Connecticut

(Connecticut) from Waterbury, CT, at

NAUG milepost 0.0, an interchange

point with Springfield Terminal

Railway Company (ST), to Torrington,

CT, at NAUG milepost 19.6, the end of

the track. NAUG will replace ST, which

has been operating the line, and will

become a class III rail carrier. The

parties expected to consummate the

proposed transaction on December 29,

1995, the effective date of the

exemption.

Any comments must be filed with the

Surface Transportation Board, 1201

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20423 and served on: Walter A.

Stapleton, Naugatuck Railroad

Company, Inc., 143A Green Mountain

Road, Claremont, NH 03743.

This notice is filed under 49 CFR

1150.31. 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)

(formerly 10505(d)) may be filed at any

time. The filing of a petition to revoke

will not automatically stay the

transaction.

Decided: January 19, 1996.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–1214 Filed 1–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

[Finance Docket No. 32850]

Tulsa-Sapulpa Union Railway

Company, L.L.C.; Acquisition and

Operation Exemption; Union Holding

Corp.

Tulsa-Sapulpa Union Railway

Company, L.L.C., a noncarrier, has filed

a notice of exemption to acquire from

Union Holding Corp., formerly TulsaSapulpa Union Railway Company, and

operate approximately 13 miles of rail

line from milepost 0.0 at Tulsa to the

end of the line at milepost 10.0 at

Sapulpa, in Tulsa and Creek Counties,

OK. The parties stated that they

expected to consummate the transaction

on or about December 29, 1995.2

Any comments must be filed with:

Office of the Secretary, Case Control

Branch, Surface Transportation Board,

1201 Constitution Ave., N.W.,

Washington, DC 20423. A copy of any

pleading filed with the Board should be

served on applicant’s representative:

Robert A. Curry, 2400 First Place Tower,

15 East Fifth Street, Tulsa, OK 74103–

4391.