Interpretation ID: nht87-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David V. Brewer -- Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Brewer and Schons

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/24/80 letter from F. Berndt to Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz and Brewer

TEXT:

David V. Brewer Esq Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Brewer & Schons Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 10332 Eugene, OR 97440

This responds to your September 26, 1986, letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No, 106, Brake Hoses to your client's coupling device. You asked us to reconfirm the statements made in a March 24, 1980 interpretation issued by former Chief Counsel Prank Berndt to Mr. Ronald Irvine that the one-piece unit coupling device in question, used to simultaneously interconnect two air lines and the electrical lines between a tractor and trailer, is not subject to Standard No . 106. We confirm that the agency's 1980 interpretation has not been superseded or revised by subsequent interpretations of the standard.

The 1980 letter to Mr. Irvine explained that we assumed from the drawings The enclosed that completed brake hose assemblies with their own end fittings attach to the coupling device. Under that assumption, NHTSA concluded that the coupling device would n ot be considered a "brake hose assembly" or a "brake hose end fitting" because the coupling device in question was not included in the standard's definitions of those terms. As a result, certification by the manufacturer to Standard No, 106 was inappropr iate.

We have not modified our interpretation of Standard No. 106 as it applies to the coupling device described by Mr. Irvine in his 1980 inquiry. If the "Ideal Coupling" not owned by your client is the sane device, it is not subject to the requirements of St andard No. 106. Of course, as discussed by the agency in its 1980 letter, your client is nevertheless responsible for any safety related defects in the coupling device under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, since it is an item of motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 26, 1986

CERTIFIED MAlL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Ideal Coupling -- Ruling Request Under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 and Related Sections

Dear Sirs:

On March 24, 1980, Ronald Irvine of our office received a letter from Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (reference #NOA-30), in regard to a one piece coupling unit device for the connection of electrical and air brake lines on tractor-trailers. A true copy of Mr. Berndt's letter dated March 24 is attached to this letter as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein.

Mr. Berndt's letter was based upon a request by our client Ideal Welding and Machine Company. The coupler product is now the property of our client Nipac, Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon, having its principal office at 120 Monroe Street, Eugene, Oregon. The undersigned respectfully requests that the rulings requested herein, which are simply an updating of the request for rulings made in 1980, be issued on behalf of the above-mentioned party regarding the applicabilit y of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 or any related standards dealing with air brake systems.

Nipac, Ltd., which commenced business in 1980, is currently engaged in the business of marketing products for industrial use. The company owns the rights to the coupling device to be attached to the electrical and air brake hoses of a truck and trailer w hich provide a simplified one piece unit for the connection of the electrical and air brake lines. Clarion Shoji Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, has already manufactured several thousand units of this device, on the strength of the March, 1980 ruling from your office.

Because the device involves the connection of air brake hoses, clarification as to the certification, labeling and testing requirements under the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 and any related sections is desired prior to the further sale of the d evice in the United States. Since your certification has not been updated in six years, the purpose of this letter is simply to update that certification.

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the following ruling be issued:

1. The Ideal Coupling (now owned by Nipac, Ltd.) does not constitute an air brake hose, end fitting or assembly that requires labeling or certification under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 or any related standard.

If your agency should find that some sort of certification, labeling or testing is required for the coupling device, please advise as to the following:

1. What form, of label, certification, or testing is required;

2. Who is required to perform the above, i.e., the manufacturer, or may our client provide the label, certification, or testing in the United States?

If any further information is necessary, please contact the undersigned. Your prompt consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

LOMBARD, GARDNER, HONSOWETZ, BREWER & SCHONS

DAVID V. BREWER Ideal Coupling - Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 Under penalties of perjury, we have examined this ruling request, and to the best of our knowledge and belief, the information presented in support of the requested ruling herein is true, correct and complete.

NIPAC, LTD.

By JACK DEAN, President

By LLOYD WETZIG

DB/lav Enclosures: U.S. Patent #4,183,599 issued January 15, 1980 Letter; Reference #NOA-30 cc: Jack Dean

(See 2/24/80 letter from F. Berndt to Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz and Brewer)