Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Notices 65969 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed information collection; ways 

to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

A comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

within 30 days of publication. 

Authority: 49 CFR 1.66. 

Issued in Washington, DC on October 24, 

2005. 

Joel C. Richard, 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–21733 Filed 10–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping 

Requirements; Agency Information 

Collection Activity under OMB Review 

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice 

announces that the Information 

Collection abstracted below has been 

forwarded to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review and 

approval. The nature of the information 

collection is described as well as its 

expected burden. The Federal Register 

Notice with a 60-day comment period 

soliciting comments on the following 

collection of information was published 

on August 16, 2005, and comments were 

due by October 17, 2005. No comments 

were received. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before December 1, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Walker, Maritime 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street 

Southwest, Washington, DC 20590; 

Telephone: 202–366–5076, FAX: 202–

366–6988, or e-mail: 

Richard.walker@dot.gov. Copies of this 

collection also can be obtained from that 

office. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Maritime 

Administration (MARAD). 

Title: Inventory of American 

Intermodal Equipment. 

OMB Control Number: 2133–0503. 

Type of Request: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Owners of U.S. 

steamship and intermodal equipment 

leasing companies. 

Forms: None. 

Abstract: This collection consists of 

an intermodal equipment inventory that 

provides data essential to both the 

government and the transportation 

industry in planning for the most 

efficient use of intermodal equipment. 

Further, this collection is intended to 

assure that containers and related 

intermodal equipment are obtainable in 

the event of a national emergency. 

Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 66 

hours. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street Northwest, 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention 

MARAD Desk Officer. 

Comments are invited on: Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed information collection; ways 

to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

A comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

within 30 days of publication. 

Authority: 49 CFR 1.66. 

Issued in Washington, DC on October 24, 

2005. 

Joel C. Richard, 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–21734 Filed 10–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20858; Notice 4] 

DOT Chemical, Denial of Appeal of 

Decision on Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

DOT Chemical has appealed a 

decision by the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

that denied its petition for a 

determination that its noncompliance 

with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 116, ‘‘Motor 

vehicle brake fluids,’’ is inconsequential 

to motor vehicle safety. DOT Chemical 

had applied to be exempted from the 

notification and remedy requirements of 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, ‘‘Motor Vehicle 

Safety.’’

Notice of receipt of the original 

petition was published on April 14, 

2005, in the Federal Register (70 FR 

19837). On July 18, 2005, NHTSA 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register denying DOT Chemical’s 

petition (70 FR 41254), stating that the 

petitioner had not met its burden of 

persuasion that the noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

DOT Chemical appealed, and notice of 

the appeal was published in the Federal 

Register on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 

52469). NHTSA received no public 

comments. 

Affected are a total of approximately 

50,000 containers of DOT 4 brake fluid, 

lot numbers KMF02 and KMF03, 

manufactured in June 2004. FMVSS No. 

116 requires that, when tested as 

referenced in S5.1.7 ‘‘Fluidity and 

appearance at low temperature,’’ S5.1.9 

‘‘Water tolerance,’’ and S5.1.10 

‘‘Compatibility,’’ the brake fluid shall 

show no crystallization or 

sedimentation. The subject brake fluid 

shows crystallization and sedimentation 

when tested as referenced in S5.1.7 at 

¥40°F and ¥58°F, sedimentation when 

tested as referenced in S5.1.9 at ¥40°F, 

and crystallization when tested as 

referenced in S5.1.10 at ¥40°F. 

DOT Chemical believes that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. DOT 

Chemical stated that there are fiber-like 

crystals in the fluid, which are borate 

salts, and 

are a natural part (no contamination) of DOT 

4 brake fluid production (just fallen out of 

solution in some packaged goods) and have 

not demonstrated any flow restrictions even 

at extended periods of low temperatures at 

minus 40° F. Furthermore, when the fluid is 

subjected to temperatures in a normal 

braking system, the crystals go back into 

solution in some cases not to reappear at all 

at ambient temperatures. 

NHTSA reviewed the petition and 

determined that the noncompliance is 

not inconsequential to motor vehicle 

safety. In its denial, NHTSA noted that 

it granted petitions for determinations of 

inconsequential noncompliance of 

FMVSS No. 116 to Dow Corning 

Corporation (59 FR 52582, October 18, 

1994) and to First Brands Corporation 

(59 FR 62776, December 6, 1994). In the 

case of Dow, the FMVSS No. 116 

noncompliance arose from a ‘‘slush-like 

crystallization’’ that dispersed ‘‘under 

slight agitation or warming.’’ NHTSA 

accepted Dow’s argument that its 

‘‘slush-like crystallization’’ does not 

65970 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 210 / Tuesday, November 1, 2005 / Notices 

consist of ‘‘crystals that are either waterbased ice, abrasive, or have the potential 

to clog brake system components.’’

NHTSA concurred with Dow’s 

conclusion that ‘‘the crystallization that 

occurred ought not to have an adverse 

effect upon braking.’’ In the case of First 

Brands, the FMVSS No. 116 

noncompliance arose from a ‘‘soft nonabrasive gel’’ that also dispersed under 

slight agitation or warming. 

NHTSA determined that facts leading 

to the grants of the inconsequential 

noncompliance petitions of Dow and 

First Brands are not analogous to the 

facts in DOT Chemical’s situation. In 

contrast, DOT Chemical’s 

noncompliance results from ‘‘fiber-like 

crystals’’ made of borate salts. These 

borate salt crystals did not disperse 

under slight agitation or warming, but 

had to be physically removed by 

filtration. 

In its denial of DOT Chemical’s 

petition NHTSA stated that the threadlike nature of this type of crystallization 

has the potential to clog brake system 

components, particularly in severe cold 

operation conditions. Impurities such as 

these in the brake system may cause the 

system to fail, i.e., to lose the ability to 

stop the vehicle over time due to the 

accumulation of compressible material 

in the brake lines. These impurities may 

also result in the failure of individual 

brake system components due to the 

corrosive nature of the contaminants 

themselves. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA decided that the petitioner did 

not meet its burden of persuasion that 

the noncompliance it described is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, its petition was denied. 

In its appeal of NHTSA’s denial, DOT 

Chemical stated that ‘‘[t]he words and 

phrases used in the [original] petition 

were not identical to the descriptions in 

the previous cases. DOT Chemical 

wishes to clear up any 

misunderstandings from the original 

petition and reword to match the 

precedent cases.’’

DOT Chemical provided the following 

statements in its appeal: 

• Our choice of the word ‘‘crystals’’ can 

also be described as ‘‘slush-like 

crystallization’’ (as in the granted petition in 

1994) or a ‘‘soft non-abrasive gel,’’ a look at 

the sample is worth a thousand words or 

even rubbing the material between the 

fingers. 

• Our ‘‘crystals’’ dispersed and/or went 

completely into solution ‘‘under slight 

agitation or warming’’ (as in the granted 

petition in 1994). 

• Slight Agitation: In DOT Chemical’s 

petition the phrase ‘‘DOT Chemical tested the 

fluid, agitated the material before testing to 

insure that the crystals were part of each 

test’’ we believe implied that the material 

went into solution when agitated. We simply 

needed to make sure that the test material 

was not just decanted brake fluid without 

‘‘crystals.’’ When agitated, ‘‘crystals’’ or 

‘‘slush-like crystallization’’ was not seen. 

• Warming: In DOT Chemical’s petition 

the phrase ‘‘when the fluid is subjected to 

temperatures in a normal braking system, the 

crystals go back into solution in some cases 

not to reappear at all at ambient 

temperatures’’ we believe implied the 

warming scenario mentioned in the granted 

petition cases. 

• In the case of the granted petitions 

stating that ‘‘its ‘slush-like crystallization’

does not consist of ‘crystals that are either 

water-based ice, abrasive, or have the 

potential to clog brake system components’ ’’

we believe implies the same thing as our 

statements ‘‘There is no contamination in 

this fluid’’ and ‘‘the crystals are a natural part 

(no contamination).’’

• In the case of the granted petitions 

stating that ‘‘the crystallization that occurred 

ought not to have an adverse effect upon 

braking’’ we believe is carried to an 

additional degree by DOT Chemical’s testing 

of the material at ¥40° F through the 

viscometer (with dimensions and drawing 

provided) and stating that the diameter is 

much smaller than brake system lines. 

Specific phrases in DOT Chemical’s appeal 

are ‘‘The crystals presented no problems with 

obstruction,’’ ‘‘results again showed no 

obstruction,’’ and ‘‘have not demonstrated 

any flow restrictions even at extended 

periods of low temperatures at minus 40° F.’’

Much time was spent on the flow and low 

temperatures because all tests passed except 

partial test failures concerning sedimentation 

and low temperatures. 

After considering the statements presented 

by DOT chemical in its appeal, NHTSA has 

decided to deny the appeal. As NHTSA 

stated in denying DOT Chemical’s original 

petition, DOT Chemical’s noncompliance 

results from ‘‘fiber-like crystals’’ made of 

borate salts which did not disperse under 

slight agitation or warming. DOT Chemical’s 

statement in its appeal that, ‘‘when the fluid 

is subjected to temperatures in a normal 

braking system, the crystals go back into 

solution in some cases’’ (emphasis added), 

distinguishes it from petitions NHTSA has 

granted, where the crystallization 

consistently dispersed. DOT Chemical in its 

appeal provided no data indicating that the 

crystals always go back into solution at 

ambient temperature, including at a test 

laboratory ambient temperature of 75° F 

(24°C). Further, DOT Chemical provided no 

data to validate its assertion that the borate 

salts will not cause any safety problems such 

as the potential to clog brake system 

components. 

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA 

has decided that the petitioner has not met 

its burden of persuasion that the 

noncompliance described is inconsequential 

to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, DOT 

Chemical’s appeal of NHTSA’s decision on 

inconsequential noncompliance is hereby 

denied. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; 

delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 

501.8. 

Issued on: October 26, 2005. 

Ronald L. Medford, 

Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle 

Safety. 

[FR Doc. 05–21723 Filed 10–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21859; Notice 3] 

Toyota Motor North America, Inc., 

Notice of Appeal of Denial of Petition 

for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

Toyota Motor North America (Toyota) 

has appealed a decision by the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

that denied its petition for a 

determination that its noncompliance 

with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, ‘‘Child 

restraint anchorage systems,’’ is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Notice of receipt of the petition for 

inconsequential noncompliance was 

published on July 19, 2005, in the 

Federal Register (70 FR 41476). On 

September 26, 2005, NHTSA published 

a notice in the Federal Register denying 

Toyota’s petition (70 FR 56207), stating 

that the petitioner had not met its 

burden of persuasion that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. 

This notice of receipt of Toyota’s 

appeal is published in accordance with 

NHTSA’s regulations (49 CFR 556.7 and 

556.8) and does not represent any 

agency decision or other exercise of 

judgment concerning the merits of the 

appeal. 

Affected are a total of approximately 

156,555 model year 2003 to 2005 Toyota 

Tundra access cab vehicles produced 

between September 1, 2002 and April 

22, 2005. S5(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 225 

requires each vehicle that: 

(i) Has a rear designated seating position 

and meets the conditions in S4.5.4.1(b) of 

Standard No. 208 * * * and, (ii) Has an air 

bag on-off switch meeting the requirements 

of S4.5.4 of Standard 208 * * * shall have 

a child restraint anchorage system for a 

designated passenger seating position in the 

front seat, instead of a child restraint 

anchorage system that is required for the rear 

seat * * *. 

The subject vehicles do not have a child 

restraint lower anchorage in the front 

seat as required by S5(c)(2).