Dow Corning Corporation; Receipt of Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Administration

[Docket No. 94-18; Notice 1]

Dow Corning Corporation; Receipt of Petition for Determination of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Dow Corning Corporation (Dow) of Midland, Michigan has determined

that some of its brake fluid fails to comply with the requirements of

49 CFR 571.116, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, ``Hydraulic

Brake Fluids,'' and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR

part 573, ``Defect and Noncompliance Reports.'' Dow has also petitioned

to be exempted from the notification and remedy requirements of the

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.)

on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to

motor vehicle safety.

This notice of receipt of a petition is published under section 157

of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1417)

and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of

judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

Paragraph S5.1.9, Water Tolerance, of Standard No. 116 states that:

At low temperature, after humidification, ``(1) The [brake]

fluid shall show no sludging, sedimentation, crystallization, or

stratification; (2) Upon inversion of the centrifuge tube, the air

bubble shall travel to the top of the fluid in not more than 10

seconds; (3) If cloudiness has developed, the wet fluid shall regain

its original clarity and fluidity when warmed to room temperature.''

Between September 4, 1992, and October 29, 1993, Dow produced and

sold 11 lots of DOT 5 silicone base brake fluid (SBBF) that do not

comply with the requirements in Paragraph S5.1.9 of Standard No. 116.

These 11 lots were broken down into 191 55 gallon drums, 1,112 one

gallon retail packages, 11,458 one quart retail packages, and 33,091 12

ounce retail packages.

At some point near the end of the low temperature portion of the

water tolerance test, these lots contained a very small amount of a

soft, slush-like crystallation. The crystallization usually formed

around the top of the specimen, where the SBBF met the vial headspace.

The smallest amount of warming made the crystallization flow back into

a liquid state.

Dow supports its petition for inconsequential noncompliance with

the following:

First, the low temperature portion of the water, tolerance test

was designed to [simulate] excessive water in non-SBBF brake fluids.

But as applied to SBBF, the humidification step results in a water

content level for test samples that is nearly double that of in-

service SBBF. SBBF test samples clearly do not accurately represent

in-service SBBF. [Dow b]elieves this built-in error results in

unrealistic and excess water. During this portion of the test, that

excess water becomes a seed for crystallization of the SBBF itself.

Without the humidification step, SBBF does not crystallize.

Second, the soft, slush-like crystals are identical to the

liquid SBBF; that is, 20 centistoke polydimethylsiloxane, some

organic additives, and 350-400 [parts per million (ppm)] water. The

SBBF crystals should not be considered as water-based ``ice''

crystals. These SBBF crystals do not exhibit any of the negative

safety impacts that result from ice formation.

Dow also submitted the following additional material: (1) A 1982

petition for rulemaking it filed to amend this portion of the standard;

(2) data to support this petition; (3) test data showing that the

subject SBBF would pass the requirements of S5.1.9 when the

humidification step is eliminated; and, (4) a statement by Ron

Tecklenberg, Ph.D, a Dow chemist, supporting Dow's petition. This

additional material is available for review in the HNTSA Docket

Section.

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

arguments on the petition of Dow, described above. Comments should

refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Section,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590. It is requested but not required

that six copies be submitted.

All comments received before the close of business on the closing

date indicated below will be considered. The application and supporting

materials, and all comments received after the closing date will also

be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the

petition is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the

Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

Comment closing date: April 22, 1994.

(15 U.S.C. 1417; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR

501.8)

Issued on: March 16, 1994.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

[FR Doc. 94-6694 Filed 3-22-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-M