[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 110 (Thursday, June 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33769-33770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11428]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21383; Notice 1]


Equistar Chemicals, LP, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Equistar Chemicals, LP (Equistar) has determined that certain brake 
fluid that was manufactured in 2004 and that Equistar distributed does 
not comply with S5.1.7 of 49 CFR 571.116, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 116, ``Motor vehicle brake fluids.'' Equistar has 
filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and 
Noncompliance Reports.''
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Equistar has 
petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that this 
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Equistar's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are a total of approximately 170,000 gallons of DOT-3 
brake fluid designated as Lot 630 and manufactured by Oxid, LP in 
September 2004. FMVSS No. 116, S5.1.7, ``Fluidity and appearance at low 
temperature,'' requires that when brake fluid is tested as specified in 
the standard at storage temperatures of minus 50 2[deg] C,

    (a) The fluid shall show no sludging, sedimentation, 
crystallization, or stratification; [and]
    (b) Upon inversion of the sample bottle, the time required for 
the air bubble to travel to the top of the fluid shall not exceed 35 
seconds. * * *

    NHTSA's compliance tests found that at minus 50[deg] C, the 
noncompliant brake fluid freezes solid, therefore showing 
crystallization and failing the requirements of S5.1.7(a). NHTSA's 
compliance tests also found that at minus 50[deg] C, upon inversion of 
the sample bottle, the time required for the air bubble to travel to 
the top of the fluid exceeds 35 seconds, therefore failing the 
requirements of S5.1.7(b). The NHTSA test report can be found in the 
docket.
    Equistar believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to 
motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. 
Equistar states the following:

    Equistar asked Oxid, LP [the brake fluid manufacturer] to supply 
a copy of its data reporting the results of the tests it had 
previously conducted for * * * [the brake] fluid pursuant to the 
test requirements of S6.7 * * *. The data show that [the brake 
fluid] unconditionally passed the tests required by the applicable 
standard, including the minus 50[deg] C test.

    Equistar states that it had the noncompliant brake fluid further 
tested by another testing center, Case Consulting Laboratories, Inc. 
(Case), and that:

    The samples tested by Case passed all of the required tests, 
including the minus 50[deg] C

[[Page 33770]]

air bubble and appearance test, except that the tested sample * * * 
began to form crystals. It bears note that the bubble travel time on 
this sample was 2.7 seconds against the standard's requirement of 35 
seconds maximum. Further, the appearance of the sample after testing 
at minus 50[deg] C was the same as before the testing.
    Given the formation of crystals * * *, Equistar asked Case to 
perform further analysis on the tested retained sample to determine 
the temperature at which the crystals began to form. The * * * Case 
report on the crystals * * * indicates that these crystals, which 
were determined to be small in both size and number, formed at minus 
49.9[deg] C, which is within the temperature allowed by the relevant 
standard--plus or minus 2 degrees relative to minus 50[deg] C. Thus, 
the results of this Case test on the retained sample do not 
constitute a failure of the required test in Equistar's view.

    Equistar's petition, including the test data it submitted as 
attachments to its petition, can be found in the NHTSA docket.
    Equistar states that ``the crystals and globules'' in the brake 
fluid ``would not pose a threat to the operation of the brake fluid.'' 
Equistar also asserts that the results may be due to ``testing 
laboratories that calibrate their testing equipment in slightly 
different ways * * *'' Equistar refers to two prior NHTSA grants of 
inconsequential noncompliance petitions which Equistar states involve 
``virtually identical circumstances involving brake fluid * * *'' These 
are Dow Corning Corporation (59 FR 52582, October 18, 1994) and First 
Brands Corporation (59 FR 62776, December 6, 1994).
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on the petition described above. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be 
submitted by any of the following methods. Mail: Docket Management 
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, Room PL-
401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand Delivery: 
Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC. It is requested, but not required, that 
two copies of the comments be provided. The Docket Section is open on 
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal holidays. Comments may 
be submitted electronically by logging onto the Docket Management 
System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically. Comments may be 
faxed to 1-202-493-2251, or may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments.
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received 
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will 
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or 
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal 
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: July 8, 2005.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: June 3, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-11428 Filed 6-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P