Interpretation ID: aiam0675
Engineering Representative
Nissan Motor Co.
Ltd.
Liaison Office in U.S.A.
560 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs
New Jersey 07632;
Dear Mr. Nishibori:#This is in reply to your letter if April 5 to Mr Schneider asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 106.#You ask whether it is permissible to use a rubber protector on a brake hose which masks in part the identification marking required by Standard No. 106. SAE Standard J40b, *Automotive Brake Hoses*, incorporated by reference in Standard n0.106, requires hose marking to be permanent in nature. Therefor, use of this protector is permissible, provided that its rubbing effect, if any, does not obliterate in time the required marking. #You have also asked whether you may conduct the whip test with the rubber protector removed. We have no objection to this method of conducting the whip test. Standard No. 106 is silent as to how the test may be conducted. Paragraph S5.7.4 of our proposal to amend Standard No. 106 (Docket No. 1-5, Notice 7, 35 F.R. 5855, March 30, 1971) represents our view that 'protective armor' should be removed for the fatigue test, and you may interpret this as including the rubber protectors also.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel;