ID: nht75-6.9

DATE: 04/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A. G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Arnold and Porter

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 22 regarding a proposed defect notification letter by the Whittaker Corporation.

In our opinion, the proposed letter does not comply with the defect notification regulation (49 CFR, Part 577) and section 153 of the 1974 Amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The specific areas of nonconformance are:

1. The second sentence must be stated in the form and order as required by section 577.4(b); that is, you must add "defect -- which relates to motor vehicle safety -- exists."

2. The first sentence in the fourth paragraph referring to the fact that no accidents have been reported could be construed as a disclaimer, and is therefore prohibited by section 577.6.

3. Since owners may inspect these wheels themselves in lieu of having a dealer perform the inspection, it is necessary to provide the owner with a return post card so the owner can certify that the wheels were inspected and do not contain a defect or were exchanged for new wheels.

4. It is necessary to inform the owner that in the event the manufacturer, dealer or distributor is unable or fails to remedy the defect without charge, the owner may notify the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20591. This is required by section 153(a)(6) of the 1974 amendment.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. James Murray of my staff at 426-2840.

ID: nht76-1.1

DATE: 12/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 29, 1976 N40-30

Mr. R. E. Weil Exterior Lighting Development Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1118 Detroit, Michigan 48231

Dear Mr. Weil:

This is in reply to your letter of September 16, 1976, to Mr. Brooks of this agency on photometric test requirements of multiple compartment and multiple lamp configurations. You have asked for our concurrence on two interpretations of Standard No. 108, as discussed below.

In your "example 1", on vehicles designed with a two lamp system, parking and (or taillamp) and turn signal functions are combined in each lamp of the two lamp system. You have asked whether the second lamp in this system would be treated as supplemental and need not meet the photometric requirements for required lamps.

The answer is no. As you are aware the photometric requirements of multiple lamps or multiple compartment lamps, where a tail or parking lamp is combined with the turn signal lamp, are partially determined by Note 4 to SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps. Note 4 establishes permissible ratios of intensity between functions i.e. that the intensity of the tail or parking lamps shall not be so great as to diminish the effectiveness of the turn signal function. Where two lamps are used and the distance between filament centers does not exceed 22 inches (as appears to be the case here) the combination of the lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections. (Paragraph 3.1 of J585d; J588e). Further, the ratio of the turn signal to the tail or parking lamps must be computed with all the lamps lighted (Note 4). With reference to those vehicles designed with a two-lamp system (your example 1), your first answer is the correct one; the lamps would be photometered together to meet the two compartment requirements for the two lamp functions performed, as specified in Table 1 of Standard No. 108.

With respect to your example 2, a multiple compartment lamp with one compartment performing turn signal and parking or tail lamp functions, and the other portion the function of parking or tail lamp only, photometric requirements for the tail lamp function are determined on the basis of the output of the two compartments. The single compartment parking lamp may, however, be treated as a "supplemental" lamp, except that the candlepower ratios (with turn signal lamp) must be met with both parking lamp compartments illuminated.

Sincerely,

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

SUBJECT: Request for an Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 from Chrysler Corporation

N41-2lRBr 22 OCT 1976

FROM: Director Office of Standards Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs

To: Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attached is a letter dated September 16, 1976, from the Chrysler Corporation, requesting an interpretation of FMVSS No. 108, on the subject of: "Photometric Test Requirements of Multiple Cavity and Multiple Lamp Configurations."

The letter is being referred to you as a matter coming within your cognizance. It is requested that the reply be staffed through this office, prior to being transmitted to Chrysler.

This office does not concur with Chrysler's proposals concerning supplemental lamps, but considers that compliance must be determined by testing with each lamp function lighted in the same cavities, just as it actually operates in vehicles being used on the highway. To allow manufacturers to certify lighting functions to conditions other than those seen by drivers of nearby vehicles, would clearly be inconsistent with the basic intent of FMVSS No. 108. Thus, using the sketch attached to the Chrysler letter, the requirements of Note 4 below Table I of SAE J588e dated September 1970, referenced in Table III of FMVSS No. 108, would be determined by measuring the photometric properties of the parking lamp function at the optical center of the two cavities, with both parking lamp bulbs lighted, as they operate in the highway environment. Next, the photometric properties of the turn signal function would be determined with only tie turn signal bulb in cavity number 1, lighted. Based on these measurements, the ratios specified in Note 4 would be obtained.

Francis Armstrong

Attachment

September 16, 1976

Mr. Roman Brooks National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Mr. Brooks:

Subject: Photometric Test Requirements of Multiple Cavity and Multiple Lamp Configurations

Reference: 1. Telephone conversation between R. Brooks and J. B. Carrier on August 13, 1976. 2. Telephone conversation between R. Brooks and R. E. Weil on August 16, 1976.

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversations regarding the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 Multiple Lamp and Multiple Cavity Lighting Requirements applicable to the 1979 models.

Based on our discussions, we would like your concurrence with the interpretation of the standard as illustrated by the following examples.

Example 1

On vehicles designed with a two lamp system in which park and turn-signal or tail and turn-signal functions are combined, the requirements may be met in one of the following ways:

1. The lamps would be photometered together to meet the two cavity requirements for the park or tail and the two cavity requirements for the turn signal. The ratio of the turn signal to park or tail would be determined using the two cavity readings of both the turn signal and park or tail. In such cases the manufacturer should use the legal name on each lamp to designate that two lamps have been designed to meet the requirements, or

2. One lamp would be photometered to one cavity requirements and the ratio of the turn-signal to the park or tail would be determined for that lamp. In such cases the manufacturer should use the legal name to designate the lamp which has been designed to meet the requirements. The other lamp would be treated by NHTSA as a supplemental lamp and need not meet the photometric requirements for required lamps.

Example 2

On vehicles designed with a two cavity lamp in which only one cavity is a combination turn-signal and park or tail, the requirements may be met as follows:

The combined cavity would be photometered to single cavity requirements and the ratio of the turn-signal to park or tail would be determined using only the park or tail readings for that cavity. In such cases, the manufacturer should use the legal name to designate the cavity which has been designed to meet the requirements.

The other cavity would be treated by NHTSA as a supplemental lamp and need not meet the photometric requirements for required lamps.

Similarly for lamps with more than two cavities, the manufacturer should designate which cavities have been designed to meet the legal requirements.

We would appreciate a written confirmation of this understanding at the earliest possible date.

Yours truly,

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

R. E. Weil Exterior Lighting Development CIMS: 416-32-27

REW/ww

cc: R. O. Sornson

ID: nht76-1.10

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

COPYEE: GEORGE NIELD -- AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS ASSOC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to General Motors Corporation's May 27, 1976, petition to commence rulemaking to amend Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, in order to return one sentence to the text of S5.1.5.2(a) that was omitted in a September 17, 1975, revision of that section (40 FR 42872). The sentence reads: "However, the maximum control force for the fifth stop in the case of a vehicle manufactured before September 1, 1976, shall be not more than plus 60 pounds of the average control force for the baseline check (but in no case more than 110 pounds)."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers a petition to amend the standard to be unnecessary because the omission was inadvertent and did not constitute a substantive change to the requirements of the standard. Therefore, an interpretative amendment to conform the language to that intended will be forthcoming in the near future. Interested persons are notified that the interim control force value has been in effect for all vehicles of 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating or less despite the omission of the sentence on September 17, 1975.

Thank you for bringing this omission to the attention of the agency.

ID: nht76-1.11

DATE: 05/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Gilbert Theissen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1976, to Mrs. Winifred Desmond of this agency concerning braking and rollover characteristics of the Jeep vehicle. We are sorry for the delay in our answer.

The Jeep Corporation is correct in saying that 49 CFR 571.105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, applies only to passenger cars. It will also apply to school buses manufactured after October 25, 1976. Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations, applies as a whole to all motor vehicles (49 CFR 575.4), but the consumer information item requiring reports on brake performance is limited to passenger cars and motorcycles (49 CFR @ 571.101).

With regard to rollover resistance, the agency has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to collect information on rollover resistance, but no requirement to report on rollover performance exists at this time.

ID: nht76-1.12

DATE: 01/06/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Nissan's December 12, 1975, question whether a manufacturer may comply with the requirement of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, for "a lens labeled in letters" (S5.3.5) by means of painting or otherwise printing the required label directly onto the lens.

The answer to your question is yes. Section S5.3.5's requirement for "a lens labeled in letters" permits labeling by means of printing directly on the lens itself.

ID: nht76-1.13

DATE: 07/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Moto Villa, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your May 27, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to brake hose assemblies that you import and contemplate importing for use on motorcycles.

I understand that you presently import brake hose assemblies for use only on off-road, moto-cross motorcycles. These assemblies are not "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) (the Act). Therefore, they are not subject to any requirements of Standard No. 106-74.

The other assemblies that you contemplate importing for onroad use, however, are subject to the standard. Your letter indicates that the manufacturer of the assemblies is prepared to affix bands to them, certifying that they meet all the performance requirements of the standard, but that he is not yet able to obtain hose and end fittings that are labeled pursuant to S5.2. The relief that you have requested, however, is found in S12, which reads as follows:

Brake hose assemblies manufactured from March 1, 1975, to August 31, 1976. Notwithstanding any other provision of this standard, a brake hose assembly manufactured during the period from March 1, 1975, to August 31, 1976, shall meet each requirement of this standard, except that the assembly may be constructed of brake hose which meets every requirement of the standard for hose other than the hose labeling requirements of S5.2, S7.2, and S9.1, and the assembly may be constructed of end fittings which meet every requirement of the standard for end fittings other than the end fitting labeling requirements of S5.2, S7.2, and S9.1.

You should note that the critical date for application of this section is the assembly's date of manufacture, rather than that of importation.

Please note further that Section 110(e) of the Act requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made.

You state in your letter that the brake system products that you plan to import are manufactured by Gri Me Ca S.P.A. In order to comply with section 110 of the Act it is necessary that Gri Me Ca designate an agent in the United States for service of process. There is no requirement in the Act that a motor vehicle importer, located in the United States, designate an agent.

In order for the designation to be effective, it is necessary that the procedural requirements of 49 CFR 551.45 (enclosed) be fulfilled by the submission of the following information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer of the brake system components;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations (Illegible Word) origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear his name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

If you have any questions concerning these requirements, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

May 27, 1976

Mark Schwimer -- Office of Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin

Dear Mark,

I would like to thank you for your assistance regarding the Brake hose standard, S106.

MotorVilla, Ltd. is the exclusive importer of products manufactured by Gri Me Ca S.P.A. 40068 S. Lazzaro Di Savena, Bolona Italy. Gri Me Ca is a small speciality manufacturer of wheels and brake products. They have not sold products into the United States until Jan. 1976 when we became their distributor. Moto Villa is involved in off road motorcycle racing and imports the Villa line of moto cross motorcycles. We have been promoting the Gri Me Ca brakes on our dirt track racers, and for sale to others for dirt track racing.

This product is not readily adaptable to on-road vehicles for several reasons. If a motorcycle doesn't already have disc brakes the entire wheel assembly must be changed including drum, disc, sprocket, rim, etc. Once this has been changed the complicated mounting problem must be tackled. Without a machine shop one could not even think about making this change. If the motorcycle happens to have disc brakes, and someone were to attempt to replace their equipment with ours, they would meet two big problems. First complicated bracketry must be fabricated to adopt our product, then the problem of different threads on the hose must be taken on. I think it is a fair statement that no one is likely to use our products for on-road use.

However, we are considering some other products that Gri Me Ca makes for on-road use. This is the main reason that we would like to get the D.O.T. requirements satisfied. We have sent a copy of Standard S106 to the manufacturer and they have informed us that they have gone through their testing procedure and have passed all the tests. They have indicated to us that this information was supplied to the Italian manufacturers using their product on their motorcycles. We have asked for a copy of this datum.

Gri Me Ca has said they can certify to the standard, however it will take several months to obtain the brake line and fitting with the correct labeling. They indicate that they have the ability to band the assemblies almost immediately with the proper information. We would like to request that they be allowed to do this possibly under S12 or S13.

Gri Me Ca was never made aware of the exacting labeling standards required in the U.S. until we provided them with the text. Their only exposure seems to have been to the performance standards, which Moto Guzzi or one of the other manufacturers provided them. They are being very cooperative and working very hard to do what is needed to be in full compliance with our laws.

We would like to request on their behalf that while new hose and fitting are being manufactured that they be allowed to "band" their current assemblies, which meet all other requirements of this standard except for the labeling. They will start shipping assemblies with all proper labeling as soon as they receive the parts to build complete assemblies. They will not attempt to use up their non labeled assemblies, but will sell them in countries other than the U.S.

Please let me know what other information you may need to facilitate our complying with the standard.

Sincerely,

Charles R. Cheatham -- General Partner, Moto Villa, Ltd.

ID: nht76-1.14

DATE: 10/26/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated response to your April 9, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to certain combination hydraulic brake hose assemblies.

Figure 3 of your letter depicts two typical brake hose assemblies that are connected end-to-end. Figure 4 depicts the intended installation of such a pair of assemblies, with the joined fittings meeting at a bracket that is attached to a shock absorber. Figures 1 and 2 show two designs to simplify the structure at this juncture.

Treating these figures in reverse order, the "B type" design shown in Figure 2 is similar to the pair of assemblies shown in Figure 3, except that the pair of joined end fittings is replaced with a single center fitting. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers such a construction to be two distinct brake hose assemblies, which would be tested separately for compliance with Standard No. 106-74. The center fitting would simply be considered an end fitting for each of these assemblies.

The "A type" design shown in Figure 1 would be treated differently, however. In this design, the two separate pieces of hose are replaced by a single piece that runs the full length between the outermost end fittings. In place of joined fittings as in Figure 3 or a center fitting as in Figure 2, this hose would be surrounded by molded rubber and a metal ring. The ring would be mounted in the bracket that is attached to the shock absorber. The NHTSA considers this construction to be a single brake hose assembly, and testing for compliance with Standard No. 106-74 would be conducted accordingly. For example, the tensile strength test would be performed by pulling, at the outermost fittings, on the full length of the hose. However, this interpretation would not require the assembly to be capable of meeting the whip resistance requirement of S5.3.3 with the full length subject to flex. The NHTSA considers such a brake hose assembly to have two distinct "free lengths" -- one on either side of the center metal ring. Therefore, the whip resistance test would be performed separately on each of these portions. In other words, the metal ring would be treated as an "end fitting," for the purposes of the whip resistance test described in S6.3.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD.

April 9, 1975

Richard B. Dyson -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Dyson

We want to obtain an approval for the two types of hydrauric brake hose assemblies as shown in the attached Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. Please tell us how to obtain the approval.

Sometimes we have to fix an intermediate point of hose assembly to prevent it from being in touch with any part of motor vehicle as shown in Fig. 4. Currently, in this case, we joint No. 1 hose assembly with No. 2 hose assembly as shown in Fig. 3 and use the joined hose, which we call "joint hose assembly". For example, its jointed fitting is fixed on the frange of a shock absorber as shown in Fig. 4.

We obtain the approval for each No. 1 hose assembly and No. 2 hose assembly when they are used as joint hose assembly. When we use A type and B type hose assemblies which are shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 respectively, how can we obtain their approvals.

1. Explanation of A and B type hose assembly

a) A type hose assembly

This hose assembly has the part which is constructed with insert metal ring and molded rubber as shown in Fig

b) B type hose assembly

This hose assembly has the integrated "center fitting" as shown in Fig. 3.

2. Questions

Please answer the following questions.

a) About A type hose assembly

Can we use A type hose assembly from which the metal ring and molded rubber are taken off when we estimate its performance?

b) About B type hose assembly

1) Should we regard that this is composed of two hose assemblies and estimate their performances separately?

2) Or should we test it as one hose assembly?

In the latter case, how should we practice the following performance tests?

1; Constriction

* Can we test the constriction of the center fitting by using a long gauge plug as shown in Fig. 5?

2; Free length * Should we regard the sum of free length of the two parts as that of the B-type hose assembly? (That is, L[1] + L[2] in Fig. 2)

3; Whip test

* Should we test it using a special jig as shown in Fig. 6?

* Should we test B type hose assembly in the same method as usual hose assembly is tested as shown in Fig. 7? In this case we can not proof the required whip performance for this type hose.

* Or can we regard the whip performance of usual hose assembly, whose free length is equal to L in Fig. 2 as that of B type hose assembly? (cf. Fig. 8)

4; Tensile test

* Should we determine the tensile strength of the two parts separately as shown in Fig. 9?

* Or can we test it as the usual hose assembly with only two end fittings as shown in Fig. 10?

Your kind reply will be appriciated

Very truely yours,

Katsuhiko Yokoi -- Chief staff Ist. Product Development Sect

[Graphics omitted]

ID: nht76-1.15

DATE: 07/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Suplicy Cacique Trading Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your telephone conversations of June 3 and June 21, 1976, with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the application of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to components of hydraulic brake systems for passenger cars.

The performance of hydraulic brake systems for passenger cars is the subject of Standard No. 105-75. The only standards that apply directly to components of a hydraulic brake system are Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. Standard No. 106-74 applies to brake hoses, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. These terms are defined in the standard as follows:

"Brake hose" means a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

"Brake hose end fitting" means a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose.

"Brake hose assembly" means a brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system, but does not include an air or vacuum assembly prepared by the owner or operator of a used vehicle, by his employee, or by a repair facility, for installation in that used vehicle.

"Vacuum tubing connector" means a flexible conduit of vacuum that (i) connects metal tubing to metal tubing in a brake system, (ii) is attached without end fittings, and (iii) when installed, has an unsupported length less than the total length of those portions that cover the metal tubing.

Please note that vacumm tubing connectors are not presently subject to any safety standards.

Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, specifies that

Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered . . . .

With respect to an item of motor vehicle equipment for which there exists no applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interprets this section as not requiring any certification.

ID: nht76-1.16

DATE: 10/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Alfred Teves GMBH (Teves) petition of April 9, 1976, for amendment of S5.2.1 of Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to eliminate the striping requirement in the case of hose used in assemblies that have "keyed" end fittings at both ends. We interprete "keyed" fittings to mean those that can be installed in only one (or possibly several) orientation(s) to the vehicle.

This is to advise you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined to grant Teves' petition with regard to hose that is assembled into an assembly whose fittings permit their installation into the vehicle in only one orientation. Detailed reasons for the limitations expressed in this letter will accompany any notice that proposes this change.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule in question will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information in accordance with statutory criteria.

Your letter incorrectly characterized the amendment of S5.2.2 that was proposed in Notice 19 of docket 1-5 (40 FR 55365, November 28, 1975) and made final in Notice 21 (41 FR 28505, July 12, 1976). The amendment only stated that the labeling required on hose need not be present after the hose has become part of a brake hose assembly or after it has been installed in a motor vehicle. The conclusion in the second paragraph of your letter that ". . . brake hose does not require labelling according to S5.2.2. . ." is therefore incorrect.

With regard to your comments on Standard No. 116, Brake Fluids, I assume that you were referring to the agency's proposed definition of "brake fluid" published on December 5, 1975 (40 FR 56928). I also assume that the phrase "polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock" in the proposed definition led you to conclude that only polychloroprene inner tube stock would be allowed for brake hose construction. This is incorrect. All of the materials specified in the definition, including SBR, EPR, CR, and NR, are considered suitable for use in brake hoses.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

Welfred M. Redler, P. E. -- Office of Crash Avoidance

April 9, 1976 PETITION

Ref.: Amendment to Standards FMVSS 106 49 CFR Part 571, Docket No. 1-5, Notice 19

In notice 19 DOT has proposed that S.5.2.2 should be altered, in that, the labeling information could be eliminated as soon as the brake hose becomes a brake hose assembly. According to S.5.2.1 the hose manufacturer was given the option to interrupt the 2 stripes by information according to S.5.2.2 and additional information.

We understand this DOT recommendation to mean that in future permanent brake assemblies do not require labelling information so long as the manufacturer documents all hoses before assembly. i.e the brake hose does not require labelling according to S.5.2.2 because the hoses are documented and can thereby always be identified

Notice 19 indicates that our interpretation in assuming the above is correct. Provided that our interpretation is correct then, we are in agreement with the proposed amendment and endorse it.

Although the deleting of S.5.2.2 for brake hoses used in permanent brake hose assemblies is apparent, the requirement S.5.2.1 which states: "each hydraulic brake hose shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes" is still required for brake hoses not part of a brake hose assembly.

The stripes are a visible indication of hose twisting during assembly. We are convinced that the brake hose marking would be unnecessary if the brake hose assembly could, by mechanical means, be prevented from twisting during and after installation. This mechanical means would eliminate the necessity of having two marking stripes.

Taking into account the foregoing we petition that S.5.2.1. should be amended to require the two marking stripes only when this mechanical means is not a part of the brake hose assembly in both ends.

We propose that FMVSS 106 should be amended as follows:

S.5.2.1 Each hydraulic brake hose, with the exception of those brake hose assemblies which have keyed ends (preventing twisting during and after instalation), shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes of at least one-sixteenth of an inch in width, placed on opp. . . .

This amendment would prevent the unnecessary duplication of safety requirements thereby keeping costs to a minimum.

Ref.: FMVSS 116 49 CFR 571 116 Docket No. 71-13

The formulation of the definition S.4. suggests that brake hose inner tube stock must be of polychloroprene (CR). We have been using SBR for our inner tubes for years with excellent results. Naturally they meet the USA Standard FMVSS 106 and also have US approval through AAMVA based on a certificate from the independent test laboratory "ETL".

As the US standards FMVSS 106 has never objected to our brake hose material with regards to its properties and suitability for use in its designed environment we fail to understand why SBR together with the other materials EPR, EPDM, buthyl etc. are not considered suitable for use as brake hose inner tube.

May we suggest therefore that the definition S4 be formulated in such a way that this point is more clearly defined. In our opinion this should be changed to cover all materials which have a stable resistance to brake fluid.

Yours faithfully -- ALFRED TEVES GMBH

ID: nht76-1.17

DATE: 07/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Parker Hannifin Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 24, 1976, letter concerning the application of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to thermoplastic tubing of 1/8 inch nominal outside diameter that is used in "auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself."

You have pointed out that it is difficult to label tubing of this diameter with letters that are 1/8 inch high, and requested an amendment of the standard to permit the labeling of such brake hoses with letters that are 1/16 inch high.

Because the tubing that you have described is not manufactured for use in the brake system itself, it is not "brake hose" as that term is defined in Standard No. 106-74 and is therefore not subject to any of the standard's requirements. In fact, although the standard does not prohibit the manufacture of air brake hose of 1/8-inch outer diameter, we are unaware at this time of the existence of any hose or tubing of that diameter that meets the definition of "brake hose". Therefore, the conformity or nonconformity of the tubing in question with the performance or labeling requirements of the standard is a matter of private contract between Parker Hannifin Corporation and those truck manufacturers that are requesting conformity.

In consideration of the possibility that 1/8-inch outer diameter tubing may in the future be used in brake systems, however, the NHTSA has decided to grant your petition to reduce to 1/16 inch the minimum required lettering height on brake hoses of such diameter. Accordingly, a proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION

M. Schwimmer -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

March 24, 1976

Subject: CFR 571, STANDARD 106 SECTIONS 5.2.2 and 7.2 "MARKING"

Gentlemen:

As presently constituted, FMVSS 106 requires that the Department of Transportation marking shall be a minimum of 1/8" high. Note specifically Sections 5.2.2, 5.2.2 (a), 5.2.2 (b), 5.2.2 (c), 5.2.2 (d), and 7.2 We have determined that legible marking of this height cannot be printed efficiently by existing production equipment upon thermoplastic tubing of 1/8" nominal outside diameter. This height of letter would cover a total span of 114.5 degrees if in perfect alignment. Even with a grooved marking wheel, we have established that 60 degrees is the practical upper limit for the lettering height to span. Beyond this span, the skewed movement between type and its own printing at the top and bottom of each letter causes perceptible smudging, so that the printing actually becomes less readable instead of more so.

Major usage of 1/8" nominal outside diameter thermoplastic tubing on highway trucks seems to be in auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself. Nevertheless, the truck manufacturers have required that this size conform to FMVSS 106 for safety reasons. If a complete failure of these lines should occur, they reason that the volume of compressed air supply momentarily lost could create a significant adverse effect upon the brake system. Not holding this size to the same requirements as all others would thus be inconsistent with the stated purpose of FMVSS 106:

"To reduce deaths and injuries occurring as a result of brake system failure from pressure . . . lost due to hose or hose assembly rupture."

We wish to make the following two alternative petitions in this regard:

1. We petition that the minimum lettering height of required marking on 1/8" nominal outside diameter airbrake tubing be changed from 1/8" to 1/16".

2. In the event that it is determined that the usage of 1/8" nominal outside diameter airbrake tubing lies beyond the scope of FMVSS 106, we petition for a clear directive which excludes this size from the standard and requires that it must not bear the marking called out in the sections of the standard which are referenced above.

Very truly yours,

W. E. Currie -- Chief Engineer

cc: W. Hertel; C. Foote; T. Landy