[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3527-3531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1219]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 00-8633]
RIN 2127-AH96


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards--Motor Vehicle Brake 
Fluids

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes technical modifications in two of the 
tests included in our standard on brake fluid, i.e., the evaporation 
test and the corrosion test. The purpose of the modifications would be 
to improve the repeatability and reproducibility of the tests. This 
document also requests comments concerning retention of the evaporation 
test. A committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers, which 
originally developed the test, recently voted to delete the test from 
its standard on brake fluid. While we have tentatively concluded that 
the test should remain in our standard, we are requesting comments on 
that issue.

DATES: Comments must be received by March 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You should mention the docket number of this document in 
your comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 
20590. Alternatively, you may submit your comments to the docket 
electronically by logging onto the Dockets Management System website at 
http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to 
obtain instructions for filing the document electronically. (This 
website also enables you to view the materials in the docket for this 
rulemaking.) You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may 
visit the Docket from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For legal issues: Edward Glancy, 
Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-
2992).

[[Page 3528]]

    For other issues: Sam Daniel, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-4921).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Proposal
    A. Evaporation Test
    B. Corrosion Test
III. Effective Date
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
    A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. National Environmental Policy Act
    D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Act
    F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
    I. Plain Language
    J. Executive Order 13045
    K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
V. Submission of Comments

I. Background

    Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, specifies 
requirements for fluids for use in hydraulic brake systems of motor 
vehicles, containers for these fluids, and labeling of the containers. 
The purpose of the standard is to reduce failures in the hydraulic 
braking systems of motor vehicles which may occur because of the 
manufacture or use of improper or contaminated fluid.
    Among the requirements of Standard No. 116 are ones addressing the 
evaporation and corrosiveness of brake fluid. Both of these 
characteristics of brake fluid are important for the safe and effective 
operation of vehicles equipped with hydraulic brake systems. For 
example, if brake fluid evaporates, fluid volume is reduced, ``vapor 
locking'' can occur, and reduced braking performance or brake failure 
can occur. Similarly, if brake fluid causes corrosion of brake system 
components, brake fluid leaks can result, with effects similar to that 
of evaporation.
    In administering Standard No. 116, we have identified several 
modifications in the standard's evaporation and corrosion tests that we 
believe would improve repeatability and reproducibility.\1\ Those 
modifications, which we are proposing to incorporate in the standard, 
are discussed in the sections which follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In order for a test to have good repeatability, there must 
not be undue variability in results when the same test is replicated 
at the same site. In order for a test to have good reproducibility, 
there must not be undue variability in results when the same test is 
replicated at different sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposal

A. Evaporation Test

    Standard No. 116 specifies various performance requirements 
relating to evaporation that must be met when brake fluid is tested 
according to a specified procedure that involves heating the brake 
fluid in an oven for an extended period of time. Among other things, 
the loss by evaporation must not exceed 80 percent by weight. See 
S5.1.8 and S6.8 of the standard.
    For a number of years, the agency has been concerned that the 
evaporation test may allow too much variability in test results. 
Because of this, we sponsored a study titled ``Evaporation Test 
Variability Study,'' which was published in May 1993. The study sought 
to identify and evaluate parameters of the brake fluid evaporation test 
procedure of Standard No. 116 that influence the high variability of 
results between laboratories. It also sought to develop procedural 
improvements to increase the precision and reproducibility of brake 
fluid evaporation measurements. This included validating procedural 
modifications by an interlaboratory round robin program using four 
designated brake fluids.
    The study identified four means by which test result variability 
could be reduced: (1) Using a rotating shelf in the oven with a 6 rpm 
sample rotation, (2) specifying the location of the shelf supporting 
the sample within the oven, (3) controlling the oven temperature 
monitoring point, and (4) using oven calibration fluid for purposes of 
oven standardization. We are placing a copy of the study in the docket.
    After we published the study, the Society of Automotive Engineers 
(SAE) committee on brake fluids initiated work to consider revising its 
evaporation test procedure to address these points. The SAE evaporation 
test procedure is set forth as part of Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid-SAE 
J1703 JAN95. The SAE committee developed a draft procedure that uses a 
rotating shelf oven, defines shelf placement, and includes temperature 
monitoring. The committee did not reach agreement on an oven 
calibration fluid because of concerns about lot variability.
    More recently, however, the SAE committee voted to eliminate the 
evaporation test from its standard. Members of the committee believed 
that the requirement is outdated. The test was developed at a time when 
brake fluids did not have as good resistance to evaporation as today's 
brake fluids, and vehicle brake fluid systems were not sealed. Members 
of the committee also believed that the evaporation test is redundant 
with the boiling point test, which evaluates similar brake fluid 
properties.
    Particularly given that the evaporation test included in Standard 
No. 116 was originally developed by SAE, we have considered, in light 
of SAE's action to delete the test from its standard, whether the test 
should be retained in our standard. We have tentatively concluded that 
the evaporation test should be retained in Standard No. 116. We are 
concerned that even though today's brake fluids may well have better 
resistance to evaporation than those in use when the test was 
originally developed, deletion of the test from Standard No. 116 could 
permit the introduction of inferior brake fluids into the United States 
market. Even if current brake fluid manufacturers would be unlikely to 
introduce such products, such introduction could come from new market 
entrants. Accordingly, we have tentatively decided to retain the 
evaporation test in Standard No. 116. We are, however, requesting 
comments on this issue.
    Assuming that the evaporation test is retained in Standard No. 116, 
we believe it is appropriate to improve the repeatability and 
reproducibility of the test. While we believe there are unresolved 
technical issues concerning oven calibration fluid, we believe that the 
repeatability and reproducibility of the evaporation test can be 
improved by adopting the other means for reducing test result 
variability that were identified by the NHTSA-sponsored report and 
included in the SAE committee draft procedure. Accordingly, we are 
proposing to amend the test procedure to specify use of a rotating 
shelf oven, define shelf placement, and specify temperature monitoring.
    We request comments on whether there are any other modifications to 
the evaporation test that would improve repeatability and 
reproducibility. Depending on the comments, we may, in the final rule, 
adopt additional modifications to the current test procedure and/or 
make changes in the specific modifications we are proposing.

B. Corrosion Test

    Standard No. 116's corrosion test involves placing six metal strips 
(steel, tinned iron, cast iron, aluminum, brass and copper) in a 
standard brake wheel cylinder cup in a test jar, immersing the entire 
assembly in the brake fluid being tested, and then heating the fluid 
for an

[[Page 3529]]

extended period of time. The metal strips and wheel cylinder cup 
represent the materials that comprise brake system components that are 
in contact with brake fluid (master cylinders, brake lines, caliper 
pistons, wheel cylinders, etc.).
    A variety of performance requirements must be met at the end of the 
corrosion test procedure. Among other things, the metal strips are 
examined for weight change, which must not exceed specified 
percentages. See S5.1.6 and S6.6 of the standard.
    While we do not have as much information concerning variability of 
the corrosion test as we do for the evaporation test, we have 
identified a change in the specification concerning how the metal 
strips are prepared prior to testing that we believe would improve 
repeatability and reproducibility. The standard currently specifies 
that each of the strips, other than the tinned iron strips, is to be 
abraded with wetted silicon carbide paper grit No. 320A until all 
surface scratches, cuts and pits are removed, and then polished with 
grade 00 steel wool.\2\ We believe that less variability would result 
if the strips were further abraded with wetted silicon carbide paper 
grit No. 1200 instead of being polished with grade 00 steel wool, and 
if a visual acuity requirement for evaluating the presence of surface 
scratches, cuts and pits were specified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Tinned iron strips are not abraded or polished during 
preparation for corrosion testing because the tin coating is very 
thin and the test strips are highly polished to begin with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The steel wool may produce slight surface irregularities due to 
interaction with dissimilar metals that the No. 1200 silicon carbide 
paper would not. The visual acuity requirement would ensure removal of 
all surface scratches, cuts and pits that are visible to an observer 
having corrected visual acuity of 20/40 (Snellen ratio) at a distance 
of 300 mm (11.8 inches).

III. Effective Date

    We are proposing to make the amendments proposed in this document 
effective one year after publication of a final rule in the Federal 
Register.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document is not economically 
significant. It was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget 
under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
    The proposed amendments would not affect the stringency of Standard 
No. 116, but would instead improve the repeatability and 
reproducibility of the standard's evaporation and corrosion tests. This 
would facilitate both the manufacturers' efforts in certifying their 
brake fluid and the agency's efforts in enforcing the standard.
    The costs of the proposed amendments would be minimal. We estimate 
that there are five to 10 brake fluid manufacturers that provide brake 
fluid for the United States market, including OEM and aftermarket brake 
fluid, and a somewhat larger number of packagers of brake fluid. There 
are also as many as five independent organizations with brake fluid 
testing capability.
    Each manufacturer, packager and organization that tested brake 
fluid would likely need to upgrade at least one oven so that it has a 
rotating shelf. We estimate the cost of modifying an existing oven at 
approximately $200. The cost of a new oven, which has a life expectancy 
of 10 to 20 years, is approximately $3,000.
    Any change in cost of conducting an evaporation test or corrosion 
test would be so minimal as to be nonquantifiable. Therefore, the 
proposed rule is unlikely to result in any change in the cost of brake 
fluid.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.) I hereby certify 
that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required for this action.
    As discussed above, the proposed amendments would not affect the 
stringency of Standard No. 116, but would instead make technical 
modifications in the standard's evaporation test and corrosion test to 
improve repeatability and reproducibility. Any change in cost of 
conducting an evaporation test or corrosion test would be so minimal as 
to be nonquantifiable, and the proposed rule is unlikely to result in 
any change in the cost of brake fluid. Therefore, the proposed 
amendments would not have any significant economic impacts on small 
businesses, small organizations or small governmental jurisdictions.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposed amendment for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have 
any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The agency has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the 
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and has 
determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule would have 
no substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federalism-
State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various local officials.

E. Unfunded Mandates Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to 
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects 
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to 
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually 
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). The proposed rule 
would not result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million annually.

F. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 
section 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety 
standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety 
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not 
identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state 
requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to 
vehicles procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a 
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or 
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not 
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other 
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking action does not include any collections of 
information.

[[Page 3530]]

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. 
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration 
of the following questions:
--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this NPRM.

J. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. This regulatory action does not 
meet either of those criteria.

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary 
consensus standards \3\ in its regulatory activities unless doing so 
would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory 
provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise 
impractical. We note that the current evaporation and corrosion tests 
of Standard No. 116 are based on an SAE recommended practice. The 
proposed amendments, which would make modifications in those tests, are 
based on a draft procedure developed by an SAE committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 
Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based 
or design-specific technical specifications and related management 
systems practices.'' They pertain to ``products and processes, such 
as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or 
material.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Submission of Comments

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESS.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically.

How Can I Be Sure That my Comments Were Received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in 
developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider 
that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments 
on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the 
Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the 
four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. 
Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-1998-1234,'' you would type 
``1234.'' After typing the docket number, click on ``search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may 
download the comments.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
    In consideration of the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR Part 
571 as set forth below.

[[Page 3531]]

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority.  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.116 would be amended by:
    a. revising S6.6.3(e);
    b. in S6.6.4(a), revising the first and third sentences;
    c. revising S6.8.2(b); and
    d. in S6.8.3, revising the fourth sentence and adding three new 
sentences after the fourth sentence.
    The revised and added paragraphs would read as follows:


Sec. 571.116  Standard No. 116; Motor vehicle brake fluids.

* * * * *
    S6.6.3 * * *
* * * * *
    (e) Supplies for polishing strips. Waterproof silicon carbide 
paper, grit No. 320A and grit 1200; lint-free polishing cloth.
* * * * *
    S6.6.4 * * *
    (a) * * * Except for the tinned iron strips, abrade corrosion test 
strips on all surface areas with 320A silicon carbide paper wet with 
ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 SBBF fluids) until all surface 
scratches, cuts and pits visible to an observer having corrected visual 
acuity of 20/40 (Snellen ratio) at a distance of 300 mm (11.8 inches) 
are removed. * * * Except for the tinned iron strips, further abrade 
the test strips on all surface areas with 1200 silicon carbide paper 
wet with ethanol (isopropanol when testing DOT 5 SBBF fluids), again 
using a new piece of paper for each different type of metal. * * *
* * * * *
    S6.8.2 * * *
* * * * *
    (b) Oven. A top-vented gravity-convection oven equipped with a 6 
rpm rotating shelf and capable of maintaining a temperature of 100 deg. 
 2 deg. C. (212 deg.  4 deg. F.). The center of 
the top surface of the rotating shelf coincides with the center of the 
oven.
* * * * *
    S6.8.3 * * *
    Level the oven and place the four petri dishes, each inside its 
inverted cover, on the rotating shelf in the oven at 100 deg. 
 2 deg. C. (212 deg.  4 deg. F.) for 46 
 2 hours. The thermometer for monitoring oven temperature 
is placed 25 mm  5 mm (1 inch  0.2 inch) above 
the rotating oven shelf containing the petri dishes. The 100 deg. C. 
mark on the thermometer is either outside the oven or the thermometer 
is capable of being read from outside the oven without opening the oven 
door. The oven door is not opened to read the thermometer during the 
test. * * *
* * * * *

    Issued on: January 8, 2001.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 01-1219 Filed 1-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P