ID: nht75-1.31

DATE: 06/10/75

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

TO: Mercedes-Benz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of December 12, 1974, requesting an interpretation of the definition of "permanently attached end fitting" appearing in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

You have described a process of heat shrinking plastic vacuum booster hose over short corrugated metal connecting tubes, the ends of which are flared to retain threaded hex fittings. You have submitted sample hose assemblies and requested confirmation of your interpretation that the end fittings are permanently attached. While these fittings may meet the common understanding of the words "permanently attached," Standard No. 106-74 defines "Permanently attached end fitting" as:

an end fitting that is attached by deformation of the fitting about the hose by crimping or swaging, or an end fitting that is attached by use of a sacrificial sleeve or ferrule that requires replacement each time a hose assembly is rebuilt.

Deformation of the hose about the fitting by heat shrinking is not "deformation of the fitting about the hose by crimping or swaging." The latter part of the definition is inapplicable because the assemblies are not subject to being rebuilt. Therefore, to classify these end fittings as permanently attached would require an amendment of the standard. Such an amendment is being considered.

Your January 7, 1975, petition for reconsideration, requesting exclusion of the above described vacuum hose from the coverage of Standard No. 106-74, was received more than 30 days after the most recent amendment of the definition of "brake hose". Therefore, it has been treated as a petition for rulemaking. The Standard defines "brake hose" as:

a flexible conduit 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.

The conduit between the vacuum booster and vacuum pump in your brake booster circuit clearly falls within this definition, and hence is subject to the Standard's requirements. The NHTSA has concluded that, because of its flexibility, this hose is exposed to the same hazards as the more traditional types of vacuum brake hose and so should be subject to the same performance requirements. Accordingly, your petition to amend the definition is denied. The conduit between the vacuum pump and the intake manifold, however, falls outside the definition of "brake hose" because, as described by Mr. Craig Jones in a conversation with Mr. Howard Dugoff of this agency on March 17, 1975, the booster system produces full vacuum even when this conduit fails. Therefore, this conduit need not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 106-74.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

December 12, 1974

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Brake Hoses

Gentlemen:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106; Brake Hoses, defines under Section S4 a "permanently attached end fitting" as being a fitting that is attached by deformation of the fitting about the hose by crimping or swaging or an end fitting that is attached by use of a sacrificial sleeve or ferrule that requires replacement each time a hose assembly is rebuilt.

Vacuum booster circuit conduit can be constructed with materials and techniques so as to satisfy, what we believe to be, the intent of this definition. Specifically, thermoset plastic materials can be heat shrunk over corrugated connections at end fittings and mid-circuit devices such as check valves. Additionally, threaded hex fittings can be secured to metal end pipes by means of flaring. These construction techniques not only provide satisfactory performance but result in an assembly that cannot be disassembled without the disstruction of one or all of the various components. Examples of these construction techniques have been forwarded to the Docket Room.

These assemblies as used on Mercedes-Benz vehicles are completely and finally assembled by our suppliers. Installation of these assemblies into our vehicles entails only the threading of the fittings into the various parts of the vacuum cricuit. There is no final construction of these hose assemblies in our manufacturing facilities. Additionally, these assemblies are offered for spare parts usage only as complete assemblies.

We hereby request clarification as to whether or not this type of vacuum conduit assembly construction satisfies the intent of the definition of permanently attached end fittings as used in this Standard and thereby permit banded identification of the complete assembly rather than a separate identification of each component.

Should you require additional information or material to clarify this request, do not hesitate in contacting this office.

Very truly yours,

Heinz W. Gerth Assistant Vice President Engineering

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

January 7, 1975

Office of The Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Subject: Petition for Reconsideration FMVSS 106, Brake Hose

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to discussions with Mr. Driver in Washington on July 26, 1974 and with Mr. Dugoff on November 4, 1974 during his visit to Germany, we would like to restate our position that the flexible vacuum conduit used in Mercedes-Benz passenger vehicles in the brake boost circuit does not fall within the definition of brake hose as outlined in Standard 106.

While this particular conduit may not satisfy the hose flexibility requirements of paragraphs S9.2.2, S9.2.3, S9.2.7 and S9.2.10, it does offer the important advantages of being resistant to high temperature and ageing.

Additionally, the installation in Mercedes-Benz vehicles is such that it is subject to very little vibration between the intake manifold and booster. The material was specifically chosen because its limited flexibility permits safer, simpler installation requiring fewer mounting brackets. The complete assembly, when installed, is still sufficiently rigid so as to prevent any abrasion, and in appearance is similar to tubing so that a mechanic will not be tempted to push it aside to gain more workspace.

A sample of this assembly has been forwarded to the Docket Section for review. Should you request additional material or information for this Petition for Reconsideration, please do not hesitate in contacting this office.

Very truly yours,

Heinz W. Gerth Assistant Vice President Engineering

ID: nht75-1.32

DATE: 11/06/75

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

TO: Mercer Machine & Hydraulics, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your October 17, 1975, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. I understand that your company manufactures, from hose and end fittings supplied by other manufacturers, hydraulic brake hose assemblies for use in motor vehicles.

For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of the standard (including two recent Federal Register notices) and an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

The standard specifies performance and labeling requirements for brake hose, end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. As an assembly manufacturer, you must certify that your assemblies comply with the standard by affixing a band as set out in S5.2.4. A designation of your choice should identify you as the assembler. You need register this designation with the NHTSA only once, even if you also manufacture air brake hose assemblies.

While the standard generally requires assemblies to be manufactured from conforming hose and end fittings, an exception (set out in S12.) permits the use of hose and fittings which meet the performance requirements but not the labeling requirements, until August 31, 1976. (The labeling requirements for hose and fittings became effective September 1, 1974; this exception is designed to facilitate the depletion of inventories of such components manufactured before that date.)

The standard does not specify the testing which you must do; it does specify the performance levels which assemblies must meet when tested by the NHTSA for compliance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, requires you to conduct a notification and remedy campaign with respect to noncomplying assemblies. You are also subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each noncomplying assembly (not to exceed $ 800,000 for each related series of noncompliances). The amount of testing which you perform has no effect on your notification and remedy obligations. If, however, you did exercise due care, you are not liable for the civil penalty. "Due care" is a flexible concept. It is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the size of your company, the amount of testing you perform, and other factors.

ID: nht75-1.33

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John H. Mueller -- Manager, Engineering Standards

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of March 25, 1975, which suggested an inconsistency in the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

S5.1 of the standard requires each hydraulic brake hose assembly to be equipped with end fittings which are attached by means of crimping or swaging. You have correctly pointed out that S5.2.3 specifies labeling requirements for "hydraulic" end fittings which are neither crimped nor swaged, even though at present there are no hydraulic fittings that fit that description. This language appears as part of S5.2 because S5.2 is incorporated by reference in and assemblies used in air and vacuum brake systems, respectively. Although there is thus no inconsistency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is considering a clarifying amendment along the lines you have suggested, which would eliminate S5.2.3 and specify the labeling requirements directly in S7.2 and S9.1.

Thank you for pointing out this potential source of confusion.

Sincerely,

March 25, 1975

Reference: MUE-534

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: FMVSS 571.106 Para. S5.2.3 Labeling Hydraulic Brake Hose End Fittings

Dear Mr. Dyson:

The standard erroneously specifies labeling for certain end fittings that are not allowed by the standard's construction requirements. Please consider the following explanation and recommendation.

Notice 16 reiterates that hydraulic brake hose assemblies must be made with the end fittings crimped or swaged onto the hose. Consistent with the Notice, Paragraph S5.1 requires all assemblies to be crimped or swaged. Unfortunately, Paragraph S5.2.3 then explains how to label end fittings that are not crimped or swaged.

Since the standard does not allow end fittings for hydraulic brake hose that require labels, no label should be described. An appropriate correction would be to drop Paragraph S5.2.3 from the standard. Air brake hose end fittings that do require labels could then be regulated under Paragraph S7.

Yours very truly,

THE WEATHERHEAD COMPANY --

John H. Mueller,

Manager, Engineering Standards

ID: nht75-1.34

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 14, 1975, requesting an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, as applied to brake hose end fittings.

S5.2.3 of the standard requires (with an exception not relevant here) that one component of a multi-piece end fitting be labeled with certain information. You have pointed out that many end fittings designed for use with nylon brake hose include components identical to those found in fittings used with copper tubing, which is not covered by the standard. Labeling of one of these common components would satisfy the standard. You have interpreted Standard No. 106-74 as permitting an end fitting manufacturer to label his full stock of such components, even though some of them would appear in copper tubing assemblies. Your interpretation is correct.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Bendix

Heavy Vehicle Systems Group

Mark Schwimmer, Attorney -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

July 14, 1975

Subject: Docket 1-5, Notice 15, FMVSS Number 106 BRAKE HOSE IDENTIFICATION

Reference: Phone conversation of J. P. Koenig, P. M. Johnston and Mark Schwimmer dated July 10, 1975.

Dear Mr. Schwimmer:

As per the above-referenced phone conversation, the Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group, desires a clarification on the requirements for the labeling of nylon tubing end fittings.

A nylon tubing end fitting must be labeled on at least one component of the fitting. Although the components of most nylon tubing end fittings are common with the components of copper tubing end fittings, we interpret that current regulations permit the labeling of an end fitting component which is common to both types of fittings. If correctly interpreted, this practice will result in copper tubing assemblies which are not covered by FMVSS Number 106, but which may consist of an end fitting component which is labeled as an FMVSS Number 106 component. On the other hand, if our interpretation is incorrect, fitting manufacturers will be burdened with the additional inventory and distribution control of handling two end fitting components identical in every respect except labeling.

We would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

R. W. Hildebrandt -- Group Director of Engineering

ID: nht75-1.35

DATE: 04/29/75

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

TO: Cummins Sales & Service Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 25, 1975, to Mr. Francis Armstrong of this agency, concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, as applied to brake hose assemblies.

The labeling requirements for brake hose assemblies became effective on March 1, 1975. On March 4, the NHTSA proposed a change in the definition of "brake hose assembly" which would exclude certain assemblies from the requirements of the standard (40 F.R. 8962, copy enclosed.) Notice of a final decision on this proposal will be published in the Federal Register.

ID: nht75-1.36

DATE: 11/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Amerace Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation of July 21, 1975, with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

Your letter of June 12, 1975, explained that you supply hose in lengths as short as 1 1/2 inches. You found it possible to include a complete legend of the information required by S5.2.2 of the standard only by utilizing two lines of printing, parallel to each other and separated by approximately 1/8 inch. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, such a labeling procedure would satisfy the standard's requirements.

I would like to point out, however, that the standard was amended by Notice 18 (40 FR 38159, August 27, 1975), to facilitate the depletion of inventories of brake hose which complies with all requirements except the labeling requirements of S5.2. One effect of that amendment was to delay until September 1, 1976, the requirement that at least one complete legend appear on any hose used in an assembly, regardless of its length. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of the notice.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

June 12, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel N. H. T. S. A.

Attention: Mark Schwimer

Subject: FMVSS-106

Dear Sir:

In reference to our phone conversation of June 3, 1975, Notice 16 of FMVSS-106 is quite explicit in requiring that a complete legend appear on each and every piece of brake hose regardless of length. The Standard itself, and various notices, appear to be less explicit as to whether this legend must appear on only one line. Notice 11 does state "only the required information may appear along one side of the hose". Your clarification is requested on this since we are not able to incorporate a complete legend on each hose length using existing equipment, nor are we able to incorporate it into just a single line.

We currently furnish some OEM parts down to 1-1/2" in length. Current equipment will allow us to repeat a complete legend every 4". On parts shorter than 4" we have found it necessary to hand stamp each piece individually, at a considerable cost penalty I might add, but even using this technique we are not able to include a complete legend on a single line within 1 1/2". However, we can apply a complete legend within 1 1/2" with a hand stamp by utilizing two lines of printing. These two lines are on "one side of the hose", parallel to each other and separated by approximately 1/8".

Since we have a considerable amount of inventory on parts under 4" which have been held up from being shipped since the effective date of Notice 16, which was March 17, 1975, we would appreciate your interpretation of the standard as to whether more than one line is permissible for a complete legend. A reply at your earliest convenience would be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

SWAN HOSE DIVISION -- Amerace Corporation; R. E. Ruda -- Technical Services Manager

ID: nht75-1.37

DATE: 09/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. I. Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: File

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: Meeting concerning labeling requirements of Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses

On September 16, 1975, a meeting was held with representatives of Volkswagen of America to discuss the labeling of short lengths of brake hose pursuant to Standard No. 106-74. The following persons were present: Cerherd Riechel VW Karl-Heinz Ziwica VW Welfred Redler NHTSA Mark Schwimmer NHTSA

The Volkswagen representatives discussed difficulties they have experienced with the requirement that a full legend of the information specified in the standard appear on each brake hose, regardless of its length. They submitted samples of the hose in question and a photograph and drawing indicating its installation. They suggested that a sequence of hose segments, interrupted only by check valves or T-connectors, be considered a single brake hose for the purposes of the standard's labeling requirements. I explained that a Federal Register notice addressing the short hose issue is expected to be published in the near future.

ID: nht75-1.38

DATE: 09/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bendix-Westinghouse

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to the question you raised in a September 5, 1975, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this agency, concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

You asked whether the designation "AI & II" is permitted on air brake hose for which the Type I and Type II dimensions listed in the standard are identical. In a letter to the Gates Rubber Company (copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interpreted S7.2 of the standard as not permitting the designation "AI-II". For similar reasons, the designation "AI & II" does not comply with S7.2. The designation "AI & AII" would comply with the standard.

ID: nht75-1.39

DATE: 03/18/75

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

TO: Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems Gp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 14, 1975, requesting an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

You have asked whether Bendix may use the same manufacturer identification designation on brake hose, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies manufactured at three plants which are geographically separated. While S5.2 of Standard No. 106-74 requires designations identifying the manufacturer of these components, nothing in the standard prohibits a single manufacturer from applying the same designation to components manufactured at different plant locations.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Bendix

Heavy Vehicle Systems Group

Mark Schwimmer, Attorney -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

February 14, 1975

Subject: Docket 1-5; Notice 9, FMVSS No. 106 -- Brake Hose Identification

Ref.: Letter from F. Armstrong to R. W. Hildebrandt dated July 1, 1974.

Phone conversation of R. G. Brewer and M. Schwimmer dated February 6, 1975.

Dear Mr. Schwimmer:

As per the above referenced phone conversation of February 6, 1975, The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group, desire a clarification on the Manufacturer Identification Regulation.

A hose assembly identification designation has previously been assigned to our organization. Hose assemblies are manufactured at three plants which are geographically separated. The same management is responsible for operation of the three plants. All engineering is done at one location and hose assembly designs at the three plants are identical. In addition, identical quality control standards are maintained at all plants.

Does the Regulation permit our Corporation to manufacture hose, hose fittings, and hose assemblies under FMVSS No. 106 in more than one plant location with the same identification designation? Can the identification designation be used at all plant locations.

We would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours, R. W. Hildebrandt -- Group Director of Engineering cc: R. Daley

POWER CONTROLS DIVISION -- Midland-Ross Corporation

January 16, 1975

Mark Schwimmer -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schwimmer:

As relayed in our telephone conversation of January 14, 1975, we are interested in the relationship between the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106 and Military Specification MIL-H-3992C. Both of these refer to automotive air and vacuum brake hoses.

Several questions have been raised regarding the applicability of these two documents with respect to hose purchased to the MIL-H-3992C specification (either for military or commercial use). We would appreciate rulings by you or your office to the following specific questions:

1. Both MIL-H-3992C and FMVSS 106 require specific labeling on the hose and on a tag on the assembly. Is it necessary for sale to the military to run two lines of identification (one per MIL-H-3992C and the other per FMVSS 106) on this hose? Likewise for commercial sale? Is it necessary for sale to the military, to include both the FMVSS 106 and the MIL-H-3992-C requirements on the assembly tag? Likewise for commercial sale?

2. Would hose manufactured and sold to the MIL-H-3992C specification also be required to meet the physical requirements of FMVSS 106 for military applications? Likewise for commercial applications?

Very truly yours, Leon C. Huneke -- Chemical Engineer

ID: nht75-1.4

DATE: 02/07/75

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

TO: Fiat - Research and Development

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 7 1975 N40-30 TWH

Mr. Alberto Negro, Director Fiat Research & Development Parklane Towers West One Parklane Boulevard Dearborn, Michigan 48126

Dear Mr. Negro:

This responds to your December 30, 1974, question whether the requirement of S5.3.2 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, would be satisfied by the use of a 4- to 8-second activation of the brake indicator lamp, activated when the ignition switch is placed in the "on" position. S5.3.2. requires:

S5.3.2 All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition (start) witch is turned to the "on", (run) position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between "on" (run) and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position.

A 4- to 8-second activation when the ignition switch is placed in the "on" position as a check of brake indicator lamp function would satisfy the requirements of S5.3.2.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel