[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54102-54103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18149]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 2005-21383; Notice 2]
Equistar Chemicals, LP, Grant 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.'' Pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Equistar 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 a
petition was published, with a 30-day comment period, on June 9, 2005,
in the Federal Register (70 FR 33769). NHTSA received no comments.
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, conducted by ABIC Testing Laboratories,
Inc. (ABIC), found that at minus 50 [deg]C, the noncompliant brake
fluid freezes, 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).
Equistar believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted.
Equistar stated the following:
[[Page 54103]]
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 stated 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 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.
Equistar stated that ``the crystals and globules'' in the brake
fluid ``would not pose a threat to the operation of the brake fluid.''
Case certified that the globules formed at minus 50 [deg]C were of a
nonabrasive nature and fall back into solution upon slight agitation
and warming. ABIC confirmed informally to NHTSA that Case's statement
is correct.
In its petition, Equistar referred to two prior NHTSA grants of
inconsequential noncompliance petitions which it claims are similar.
These are Dow Corning Corporation (59 FR 52582, October 18, 1994) and
First Brands Corporation (59 FR 62776, December 6, 1994). Equistar
stated that NHTSA should grant its petition based on the same rationale
as it used to grant the previous two petitions.
NHTSA agrees with Equistar that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Both Case and ABIC determined
that that the globules which formed at minus 50 [deg]C were of a
nonabrasive nature and fell back into solution upon slight agitation
and warming. In granting both the Dow Corning and First Brands
petitions referenced above, NHTSA determined that the type of
crystallization which is of a nonabrasive nature and will readily
disperse under slight agitation or warming ought not have an adverse
effect upon braking. Therefore the cases are analogous. However, NHTSA
wants to be clear that it maintains a distinction, which it established
in granting the Dow Corning and First Brands petitions, between
crystals which are of a nonabrasive nature and fall back into solution
upon slight agitation and warming, as opposed to crystals that are
abrasive or do not fall back into solution, and that may have the
potential to clog brake system components. Brake fluid which exhibits
the latter characteristics do not fall under the Dow Corning and First
Brands precedent.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the
petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance
described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Equistar's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the
noncompliance.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: September 7, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-18149 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P