Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Notices 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 °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 °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 °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 °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 °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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Ex Parte No. 333] 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

TIME AND DATE: 9 a.m., September 15, 

2005. 

PLACE: The Board’s Hearing Room, 

Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423. 

STATUS: The Board will meet to discuss 

among themselves the following agenda 

items. Although the conference is open 

for public observation, no public 

participation is permitted. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: STB Docket 

No. WCC–101, Government of the 

Territory of Guam v. Sea-Land Service, 

Inc., American President Lines, LTD., 

and Matson Navigation Company, Inc. 

STB Finance Docket No. 34505, East 

Brookfield & Spencer Railroad, LLC—

Lease and Operation Exemption—CSX 

Transportation, Inc. 

STB Docket No. AB–441 (Sub-No. 

4X), San Pedro Railroad Operating 

Company, LLC—Abandonment 

Exemption—in Cochise County, AZ. 

STB Docket No. AB–976X, Pittsburg & 

Shawmut Railroad, LLC—Abandonment 

Exemption—in Armstrong and Jefferson 

Counties, PA. 

STB Docket No. AB–600, Yakima 

Interurban Lines Association—Adverse 

Abandonment—in Yakima County, WA. 

STB Finance Docket No. 34746, 

Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad, Inc.—

Acquisition Exemption—Rail Line of 

Union Pacific Railroad Company. 

STB Finance Docket No. 34694 (SubNo. 1), Union Pacific Railroad 

Company—Temporary Trackage Rights 

Exemption—BNSF Railway Company. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. 

Dennis Watson, Office of Congressional 

and Public Services, Telephone: (202) 

565–1596 FIRS: 1–800–877–8339. 

Dated: September 8, 2005. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–18131 Filed 9–8–05; 1:51 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P