Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Proposed Rules 3527

DATES: Written comments must be

received by March 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written

comments either by mail or

electronically. Send comments to the

Methods Update Comment Clerk (W–

99–21), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Water Docket, MC–4101, Ariel

Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Submit

electronic comments to OWDocket@epa.gov. Please submit copies

of any references cited in your

comments. EPA would appreciate an

original and 3 copies of your comments

and enclosures (including references).

This Federal Register document is

also available on the Internet at: http:/

/www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. The record for

this rulemaking has been established

under docket number W–99–21.

Supporting documents (including

references and methods cited in this

notice) are available for review at the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Water Docket, East Tower Basement,

Room EB57, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. For access to the

docket materials, call 202/260–3027 on

Monday through Friday, excluding

Federal holidays, between 9 a.m. and

3:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Standard

Time for an appointment.

Copies of final methods published by

ASTM are available for a nominal cost

through American Society for Testing

and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,

West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959.

Copies of final methods published by

USGS are available for a nominal cost

through the United States Geological

Survey, U.S. Geological Survey

Information Services, Box 25286,

Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225–0425.

Copies of final methods published by

DOE are available for a nominal cost

through the Environmental

Measurements Laboratory, U.S.

Department of Energy, 376 Hudson

Street, New York, NY 10014–3621.

Copies of Standard Methods are

available for a nominal cost from the

American Public Health Association,

1015 Fifteenth Street NW., Washington,

DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information regarding wastewater

methods contact Dr. Maria GomezTaylor, Engineering and Analysis

Division (4303), USEPA Office of

Science and Technology, Ariel Rios

Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460 (e-mail: GomezTaylor.Maria@epa.gov). For information

regarding drinking water methods

contact Dr. Richard Reding, Office of

Ground Water and Drinking Water, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 (e-mail:

Reding.Richard@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are

proposing to approve revisions to the

Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures

for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the

Clean Water Act; National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations; and

National Secondary Drinking Water

Regulations; Methods Update.

Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register,

the Agency is promulgating this rule as

a direct final rule without prior proposal

because we view these as noncontroversial revisions and do not

expect adverse comments. We want to

allow immediate use of the methods for

compliance monitoring, and believe that

it is in the public interest to do so. For

further information, please see the

information provided in the direct final

rule which is located in the ‘‘Rules and

Regulations’’ section of this Federal

Register publication.

If EPA does not receive adverse

comment, we will not take further

action on this proposal. If we receive

adverse comment, we will withdraw the

direct final rule (or the distinct

amendment, paragraph, or section to

which comments apply) and it (they)

will not take effect. We will address all

public comments in a subsequent final

rule based on the proposed rule. We

will not institute a second comment

period on this action. Any parties

interested in making comments must do

so at this time. For the various statutes

and executive orders that require

findings for rulemaking, EPA

incorporates the findings from the direct

final rulemaking into this companion

notice for the purpose of providing

public notice and opportunity for

comment.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 136

Environmental protection, Analytical

methods, Incorporation by reference,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 141

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Incorporation by reference, Indianlands, Intergovernmental relations,

Radiation protection, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Water

supply.

40 CFR Part 143

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Incorporation by reference, Indianlands, Water supply.

Dated: December 11, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–179 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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).

3528 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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.

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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Proposed Rules 3529

2Tinned 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.

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.

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. § 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.

3530 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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.’’

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.

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 fourdigit 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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:

§ 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 gravityconvection oven equipped with a 6 rpm

rotating shelf and capable of

maintaining a temperature of 100° ± 2°

C. (212° ± 4° 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° ± 2° C. (212° ± 4° 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° 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