76520 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Notices 

hearing will be held. Based on the Draft 

EIS and comments received, the LPA 

may be refined, and the City of Tucson 

will further assess the LPA in the Final 

EIS and will apply for FTA approval to 

initiate Preliminary Engineering of the 

LPA.

Issued on: December 15, 2004. 

Leslie T. Rogers, 

Region IX Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–27899 Filed 12–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18755; Notice 2] 

Coupled Products, Inc., Denial of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Coupled Products, Inc. (Coupled 

Products) has determined that certain 

hydraulic brake hose assemblies that it 

produced do not comply with S5.3.4 of 

49 CFR 571.106, Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, 

‘‘Brake hoses.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30118(d) and 30120(h), Coupled 

Products 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. Notice of receipt of 

Coupled Products’ petition was 

published, with a 30 day comment 

period, on August 5, 2004, in the 

Federal Register (69 FR 47484). NHTSA 

received no comments. 

S5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 106, tensile 

strength, requires that ‘‘a hydraulic 

brake hose assembly shall withstand a 

pull of 325 pounds without separation 

of the hose from its end fittings.’’ A total 

of approximately 24,622 brake hose 

assemblies, consisting of 3,092 

assemblies bearing Part Number 5478 

and 21,530 assemblies bearing Part 

Number 5480 may not comply with 

S5.3.4. The potentially affected hoses 

were manufactured using a ‘‘straight 

cup’’ procedure rather than the 

appropriate ‘‘step cup’’ procedure. 

Compliance testing by the petitioner of 

eight sample hose assemblies from two 

separate manufacturing lots of these 

hoses revealed that seven of the eight 

samples experienced hose separation 

from the end fittings at from 224 to 317 

pounds. 

Coupled Products believes that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. Coupled 

Products stated in its petition:

Both Part Numbers 5478 and 5480 are 

utilized in specific boat trailer applications of 

a single trailer manufacturer.* * * [T]he 

routing and placement of the hoses on the 

particular boat trailers involved, and the 

shielded nature of the end fittings on those 

trailers are such that a linear, end-to-end 

‘‘straight pull’’ on the hose assembly, such as 

that specified in the FMVSS No. 106 tensile 

strength test procedure, is unlikely to occur 

in real-world use. Because of the manner in 

which these hose assemblies are installed, 

rather than a ‘‘straight pull,’’ it is more likely 

that the free length of the hose itself could 

be entangled or caught on a piece of road 

debris or other obstruction, resulting in a 

‘‘side pull’’ on the assembly. With this 

potential in mind, [Coupled Products] 

conducted a side pull tensile test on a sample 

of the subject brake hose assemblies to 

simulate the possible effect of a side pull on 

the integrity of the assembly. This was 

accomplished by creating special mounting 

fixtures and apparatus to the standard testing 

equipment.* * * The ‘‘side pull’’ test results 

show that the tensile load achieved prior to 

the ends separating from the hose exceeded 

530 pounds in each of the five samples 

tested—well in excess of the 325 pound 

requirement.

Coupled Products further stated:

We believe that it is likely that in order for 

such a [side] pull to occur, the debris or 

obstacle in question would need to be of such 

size and/or weight that its encounter with the 

trailer would result in significant structural 

impact and thus have immediate effect on the 

operation of the trailer. While we have not 

been able to devise a test that would verify 

this theory, we believe that this is a realistic 

scenario. As a result, it seems likely that the 

trailer would likely incur an operational 

impact even before the possible loss of 

braking capability resulting from hose 

assembly failure. 

The axles used in the trailers in question 

are stationary. Unlike sliding axles that are 

used in some trailers, the axles used in these 

trailers are in a fixed location. Consequently, 

the possibility that the sliding movement of 

the axle might result in unintended pull on 

the hose is remote.* * * 

Because the braking system on the trailer 

is independent of the towing vehicle’s 

braking system, any failure of the hose 

assembly due to excessive tensile force—

unlikely as that may be—will not result in a 

loss of braking capability of the towing 

vehicle. Thus, in the unlikely event of 

separation, the driver would still retain full 

braking capability of the towing vehicle and 

would be able to stop the vehicle (although 

additional stopping distance may be required 

depending on the type of vehicle being used).

In support of its petition, Coupled 

Products stated that NHTSA has in 

other cases, determined that a FMVSS 

No. 106 noncompliance is 

inconsequential to safety where, 

‘‘because of the specific vehicle 

application involved, the hose assembly 

will not be subject to the type of forces 

specified in the standard.’’ To support 

this assertion, Coupled Products cited 

two inconsequential petition grants: 

General Motors, 57 FR 1511 (January 14, 

1992) and Mitsubishi Motors America, 

57 FR 45868 (October 5, 1992). The 

petitioner specifically referred to the 

statement in these petition grants that 

the ‘‘end use of the hoses was such that 

they were subject to pressure, not 

vacuum applications.’’

NHTSA has reviewed the petition and 

has determined that the noncompliance 

is not inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. The two prior inconsequentiality 

petition grants cited by the petitioner 

relate to the adhesion requirement for 

air brake hoses, which addresses the 

separation of the inner layers of the 

brake hose. This is distinguishable from 

the noncompliance in Coupled 

Products’ hoses, which relates to the 

tensile strength requirement for 

hydraulic brake hoses, and addresses 

the separation of the hydraulic brake 

hose from the end fittings. Therefore, 

NHTSA’s grant of the petitions cited by 

Coupled Products is not persuasive 

precedent. 

The petitioner states that because of 

the specific vehicle application 

involved, (i.e., the hoses are used in 

specific boat trailer applications of a 

single trailer manufacturer), the hoses 

are installed in such a manner as to 

make it unlikely that the hose assembly 

would be subject to the type of forces to 

which the tensile strength test is 

directed. However, this is also true of 

many automobile brake hose 

applications. 

In addition, the tensile strength test is 

a worst case test, subjecting the crimped 

joint to a separation pull. The purpose 

of the tensile strength test is to test only 

the crimped area in a brake hose. A test 

conducted at an angle to the end fitting 

centerline, such as conducted by the 

petitioner, would not measure the 

strength of the crimped area by itself but 

also the interaction of the end fitting 

with the interior wall of the brake hose. 

This would result in a more lenient test 

for the crimped area. 

The petitioner also asserts that 

because the braking system on the 

trailer is independent of the towing 

vehicle’s braking system, a failure of the 

hose assembly on the trailer would not 

result in a loss of braking capability of 

the towing vehicle, and the driver 

would be able to stop both vehicles. 

However, in the event that the failure of 

the hose assembly occurred, the driver 

of the towing vehicle would be faced 

with a potentially serious safety 

situation due to the reduced stopping 

capability of the vehicle combination. In 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Notices 76521

1The verified notice of exemption was received 

by the Board on November 19, 2004, but was not 

docketed as filed until November 24, 2004, when 

the filing fee for SRY was received. Applicants did 

not include a consummation date in the notice. 

However, by letter filed on November 30, 2004, 

applicants indicated a consummation date of 

January 13, 2005. By letter filed on December 1, 

2004, applicants requested to amend the notice to 

change the length of the line from 18.0 miles to 16.3 

miles, extending between west of Levee, milepost 

20.0, and Taft, milepost 36.3, in Kern County, CA. 

Upon consultation with applicants, December 1, 

2004 is used as the actual filing date. Applicants 

also indicated a new consummation date of January 

19, 2005. Under 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(2), the railroad 

must file a verified notice with the Board at least 

50 days before the abandonment or discontinuance 

is to be consummated. The amended notice was 

filed on December 1, 2004. Therefore, the earliest 

possible date consummation date is January 20, 

2005. By letter filed on December 13, 2004, 

applicants confirmed that the consummation date 

should be January 20, 2005. Applicants also 

indicated that, upon further review of their records 

and communication from Baker Petrolite 

Corporation (BPC), they have determined that BPC 

was an active shipper located at milepost 18.99, and 

have reduced the scope of the abandonment and 

discontinuance so as to continue to serve BPC. 

Applicants stated that, as per a December 1, 2004 

conversation with BPC, the reduction in the scope 

of abandonment and discontinuance resolved BPC’s 

concerns.

2 In the December 13, 2004 letter, applicants 

certified that the certification contained in their 

verified notice of exemption filed on November 19, 

2004, remains correct and accurate for the rail line 

between milepost 20.0 and milepost 36.3.

3The Board will grant a stay if an informed 

decision on environmental issues (whether raised 

by a party or by the Board’s Section of 

Environmental Analysis (SEA) in its independent 

investigation) cannot be made before the 

exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Outof-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C. 2d 377 (1989). Any 

request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible 

so that the Board may take appropriate action before 

the exemption’s effective date.

addition, the braking imbalance can 

affect the stability of the towing vehicle, 

which can result in a loss-of-control of 

the vehicle combination. 

The compliance testing by the 

petitioner resulted in seven of eight 

sample hose assemblies experiencing 

hose separation from the end fittings at 

from 224 to 317 pounds. This represents 

a noncompliance margin of from 45 

percent to 2 percent, respectively, 

compared to the requirement of 325 

pounds, over a total population of 

24,622 hose assemblies. NHTSA 

believes that a noncompliance margin of 

up to 45 percent presents a serious 

safety concern. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that the petitioner 

has not met its burden of persuasion 

that the noncompliance it describes is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, its petition is hereby 

denied. Coupled Products must now 

fulfill its obligation to notify and 

remedy under 49 U.S.C. 30118 (d) and 

30120(h).

Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h); delegations of authority at CFR 

1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: December 15, 2004. 

Kenneth N. Weinstein, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 04–27832 Filed 12–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. AB–398 (Sub–No. 9X)] 

San Joaquin Valley Railroad 

Company—Discontinuance 

Exemption—in Kern County, CA 

[STB Docket No. AB–170 (Sub-No. 1X)]

Sunset Railway Company—

Abandonment Exemption—in Kern 

County, CA

Sunset Railway Company (SRY) and 

San Joaquin Valley Railroad Company 

(SJVR) (collectively, applicants) have 

filed a notice of exemption under 49 

CFR 1152 subpart F—Exempt 

Abandonments and Discontinuances of 

Service 1 for SRY to abandon and for 

SJVR to discontinue service over a 16.3-

mile line of railroad, known as the 

Sunset Subdivision, extending between 

west of Levee, milepost 20.0, and Taft, 

milepost 36.3, in Kern County, CA. The 

line traverses United States Postal 

Service Zip Code 93268.

SRY and SJVR have certified that: (1) 

No local traffic has moved over the line 

for at least 2 years; (2) there has been no 

overhead traffic on the line in over 2 

years and any overhead traffic can be 

rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal 

complaint filed by a user of rail service 

on the line (or by a state or local 

government entity acting on behalf of 

such user) regarding cessation of service 

over the line either is pending with the 

Surface Transportation Board or with 

any U.S. District Court or has been 

decided in favor of complainant within 

the 2-year period; and (4) the 

requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 

(environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 

(historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 

(transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 

(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 

1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental 

agencies) have been met.2

As a condition to this exemption, any 

employee adversely affected by the 

abandonment shall be protected under 

Oregon Short Line R. Co.—

Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 

(1979). To address whether this 

condition adequately protects affected 

employees, a petition for partial 

revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

must be filed. 

Provided no formal expression of 

intent to file an offer of financial 

assistance (OFA) has been received, this 

exemption will be effective on January 

20, 2005, unless stayed pending 

reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do 

not involve environmental issues,3

formal expressions of intent to file an 

OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2), and 

trail use/rail banking requests under 49 

CFR 1152.29 must be filed by December 

30, 2004. Petitions to reopen or requests 

for public use conditions under 49 CFR 

1152.28 must be filed by January 10, 

2005, with: Surface Transportation 

Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20423–0001.

A copy of any petition filed with the 

Board should be sent to applicants’

representatives: Attorney for SRY—

Mack H. Shumate, Jr., Senior General 

Attorney, Union Pacific Railroad 

Company, 101 North Wacker Drive, 

Room 1920, Chicago, IL 60606; 

Attorneys for SJVR—Gary A. Laakso, 

Esq., Vice President Regulatory Counsel, 

RailAmerica, Inc., 5300 Broken Sound 

Boulevard NW., Second Floor, Boca 

Raton, FL 33487, and Louis E. Gitomer, 

Esq., Of Counsel, Ball Janik LLP, 1455 

F Street, NW., Suite 225, Washington, 

DC 20005. 

If the verified notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio.

Applicants have filed environmental 

and historic reports which address the 

effects, if any, of the abandonment and 

discontinuance on the environment and 

historic resources. SEA will issue an 

environmental assessment (EA) by 

December 23, 2004. 

Interested persons may obtain a copy 

of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, 

Surface Transportation Board, 

Washington, DC 20423–0001) or by 

calling SEA, at (202) 565–1539. 

[Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339.] Comments on 

environmental and historic preservation 

matters must be filed within 15 days 

after the EA becomes available to the 

public. 

Environmental, historic preservation, 

public use, or trail use/rail banking 

conditions will be imposed, where 

appropriate, in a subsequent decision. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 

1152.29(e)(2), SJVR shall file a notice of 

consummation with the Board to signify 

that it has exercised the authority 

granted and fully abandoned the line. If 

consummation has not been effected by 

SJVR’s filing of a notice of