ID: nht74-4.25

DATE: 05/30/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: The Philadelphia Inquirer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your recent letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation concerning Federal regulations on supplemental lights to be installed on your trucks.

There are no requirements in our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which would prohibit the use of a white light on the cab roof to Illuminate information on the front of the truck body. Likewise, we have no specifications for such lights. The use and location of the lights would, however, be subject to regulations imposed by the individual States.

As a matter of information, the front identification lamps and clearance lamps, as shown on the sketch attached to your letter, do not appear to be located in accordance with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (copy enclosed). Table II requires these lamps to be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. In your unscaled drawing the top of the truck body appears significantly higher than the cab.

Thank you for your interest in highway safety.

ENC.

N.H.T.S.A

We are acquiring a new fleet and we would like to mount a white light on the roof of our cabs that would illuminate the Company Name and vehicle identification number which is located on the front of the truck body. Before installing these lights, we would like to know if there is any part of the D.O.T. regulations which would prohibit their use, or if there are any regulations regarding their location, type, etc. Thank you for your cooperation.

Patrick R. Mulrooney

Fleet Safety MGR.

The Philadelphia Inquirer

ENC.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-4.26

DATE: DATE:05/07/74

FROM: FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: TO: Perkasie Vulcanizing Co., Inc.

TITLE: TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1974, asking whether, consitently with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, maximum permissible load may be labeled in two lines, viz.:

MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE LOAD XXXXXXXX LBS.

You ask further whether there is a maximum height requirement for the lettering used in the label.

Standard No. 117 does not specify labeling format, and the two-line format you submit conforms to the standard. Paragraphs S6.3.1 and S6.3.2 of Standard No. 117 require all safety labeling, both permanent and affixed, to be at least 0.078 inches in height. No other requirements regarding labeling size are specified.

PERKASIE VULCANIZING CO., INC.

[Illegible Words]

SUBJECT: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards FMVSS-117 - Auto Tire Retreads

In our letter to you dated January 4, 1974 on the subject we gave you information regarding the requirement that on February 1, 1974 certain information must be permanently molded into or onto the sidewall of an auto tire retread.

As you may have noticed in news releases, the U.S. Court of Appeals on January 8, 1974 modified the requirements as to what information must appear on the sidewall.

The result is -- on Auto Tire Retreads all that is required as of February 1, 1974 is --

"Maximum permissible load"

This information must be permanently molded into or onto the sidewall of Auto Tire Retreads.

All the other information such as tire size, inflation pressure, ply rating, tubeless or tube type, bias ply, bias/belted or radial must be on the tire, or may be labeled onto the tire, either permanently or by the addition of a label that is not easily removable, during the retreading process as we mentioned in a previous letter to you dated May 9, 1973, may still be used.

We will keep you advised of future rulings or changes.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION DATE:05/07/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawr

JAS. H. MATTHEWS & CO.

February 18, 1974

Perkesie Vulcanizing Company

ATTENTION: Ralph Perkesie

SUBJECT: Retread Law FMVSS-117

In response to our phone conversation recently in which you had requested us to investigate the retread law FMVSS-117 concerning the character size and length as specified in this law for the labeling of the maximum permissible load designation.

It is our position that we can not presume to interpret or have access to this particular law. This specification should be interpreted by the department of transportation with Perkesie Vulcanizing Company. Any questions concerning this particular law or its' requirements stated in this law should be passed upon the department of transportation. We hope that you can understand that the Jas. H. Matthews & Company is simply the supplier of the tags as specified by a customer. If these tags must meet a specific regulation or a variance of this regulation, this must be interpreted by the customer.

We have our facilities at your disposal in supplying and fulfilling your particular requirements for tags once these specifications have been determined.

We hope this information is of value to you and if we can be of any further service to you in any way please do not hesitate to contact us.

C. R. Parfitt Industry Specialist

ID: nht74-4.27

DATE: 05/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: L and R Enterprises

COPYEE: HON. JOHN TOWER; HON. LLOYD BENTSEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 15, 1974, letter asking whether your installation of spotlights through the left A-pillar of passenger cars is subject to Standards 201 and 216.

Standard 201 does not apply to the instrument panel area on the driver's side from the left door to a longitudinal plane 3-1/4 inches to the right of the steering wheel. The left A pillar is within this excluded area.

Your drilling operation may affect roof strength and I have enclosed a copy of Standard 216, our standard on roof crush resistance. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, it is the responsibility of the person who manufacturers or alters a vehicle to determine whether his vehicle meets the requirements.

Your business is subject to these requirements, however, only if you qualify as an alterer of motor vehicles under 49 CFR 567.7, which is enclosed. The mounting of a spotlight by drilling the A-pillar is a "non-readily attachable" alteration. Such an alteration would be subject to the @ 567.7 requirement only if you mount it "before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale."

2 ENCLS

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

February 19, 1974

Jim Lang President L and R Enterprises

Since the questions raised in your letter of February 15, 1974, are under the jurisdiction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, we have taken the liberty of forwarding it to the General Counsel of that agency.

You can expect to hear directly from that office in the near future.

FRED J. EMERY Director of the Federal Register

cc:w/encl Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq.

General Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

cc: (1) Honorable John Tower

United States Senate

(2) Honorable Lloyd Bentsen

United States Senate

L and R Enterprises

February 15, 1974

Director Office of Federal Registrar National Archives and Records Service General Services Administration

Ref: Code of Federal Regulations

49 transportation

Parts 200 to 999

Revised October 1, 1972

With reference to part 571 of the above publication and entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Standard; sub-part 571.201 and with specific reference to S3.1.1b and c, has been interpreted to indicate that any rigid projection outboard from the padded dash is or will be illegal. Our exact reference here has to do with a "post mounted spot light which has a rigid handle outboard from said dash." Please provide an exact interpretation of the above for us.

Another question arises in sub-part 571.216 with specific reference the strength of the roof of a vehicle. Said testing is completed the factory, but if a 1/2" to 3/4" hole is drilled in the left or right front corner post, the physical structure is altered and weakened. We would appreciate a positive interpretation on this point also.

L and R Enterprises is a manufacturer of 12 volt lighting devices, and we need these two interpretations so as to know how to schedule our production.

Thanks for your assistance in this matter.

Jim Lang President L and R Enterprises

c/c Honorable John tower Senator from Texas

Honorable Lloyd Pentsen

Senator from Texas

ID: nht74-4.28

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 29, 1974, request for approval of your banding designs to meet the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, for labeling brake hose assemblies.

The NHTSA interpretes a band as a label which encircles the hose completely and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, of course, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it cannot easily be removed. From these statements, you should be able to determine the compliance of your labeling method with the standard. The NHTSA does not approve specific designs in advance because the material, installation method, and underlying material can significantly affect the quality of any design.

Yours Truly,

Bendix

Heavy Vehicle Systems Group

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Docket Section, Room 5219

400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

April 29, 1974

Subject: Docket 1-5, Notice 8 & 10, Standard 106

Reference: @ 5.2.4 of Notice 8; Page 7426, Second Paragraph of Notice 10

Gentlemen:

Attached are prints of our Dwgs. 247650 and 245353 showing a date band and a date ring for hose assemblies as used to date. The band is wrapped around the hose, the narrower portion fed into the slot and folded over. The ring is slid over the hose prior to assembly of the fittings.

In both cases, the part is held captive between the fitings of the hose assembly.

An interpretation would be appreciated as to whether both dating methods fulfill the intent of Standard 106 referenced material.

Yours truly,

F. R. Schubert

Enclosures

(Graphics omitted)

DATE BAND BLANK

HOSE ASSEMBLY

BENDIX-WESTEICHO AUTOMOTIVE AIR BRAKE CO.

(Graphics omitted)

DATE RING FOR HOSE

BENDIX-WESTINCHOUSE AUTOMOTIVE AIR BRAKE CO.

ID: nht74-4.29

DATE: 06/19/74

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

TO: Busby, Rivkin, Sherman, Levy, and Rehm

COPYEE: DYSON; DUGOFF; CARTER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 10, 1974, in which you asked for our interpretation of the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (sec. 103(d)) with respect to the Pennsylvania position on brake hose. A letter that you enclosed from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation advised a manufacturer's representative that "Pennsylvania will continue to approve brake hoses under the SAK Standards for air, hydraulic and vacuum hose," and that the State "will continue to require the hose be identified in the same manner as our present regulations," with the Federally-required labeling placed on "a separate line" from the State's labeling.

Section 103(d) of the Act, 43 U.S.C. 1392(d), plainly prohibits any State from establishing or continuing in effect a safety standard applicable to an item of motor vehicle equipment, where there is an applicable Federal standard, unless the State standard is "identical to the Federal standard." This preemption provision takes effect wherever a Federal standard is applicable to the same aspect of performance as the State standard. When the new Federal standard on brake hoses comes into effect, with its testing and labeling requirements, any differing State standards, as Pennsylvania's appear to be, will be preempted and void.

ID: nht74-4.3

DATE: 06/07/74

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

TO: Engineer/Transit Technology

TITLE: TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 2, 1974, request for a ruling on whether trolley and motor buses equipped with air brake systems and dynamic electric or hydraulic devices are required to be equipped with antilock equipment.

Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, requires stopping distance performance which must be met by any bus equipped with air brakes, whether or not it is equipped with supplementary dynamic braking means, and the stops must be made with only controlled wheel lockup over 10 mph. Although the standard does not require antilock devices, many manufacturers have indicated they will use antilock devices to meet this requirement.

In evaluating a vehicle's compliance with the stopping distance performance requirements of S5.3 and S5.7.2.3, auxiliary braking devices may be utilized in making the stops provided such devices are engaged by means of the same service brake pedal or parking brake control that operates the air brakes. It should be noted, however, that these stops must be made with the transmission selector control in neutral or the clutch disengaged (S6.1.3).

It can be foreseen that at least one difficulty may arise in testing with supplementary brake systems. S6.3 requires that the transmission be in neutral or the clutch be disengaged during deceleration, which might eliminate the torque from your dynamic brake.

Please write again if this or other difficulties arise in the certification of your buses.

Sincerely,

April 2, 1974

National Highway Traffic Administrator

Dear Sir:

The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle has recently written a specification for the purchase of more than 600 motor and trolley buses. The first draft of this specification is presently in circulation to potential bidders, transit properties, governmental agencies, consultants and other interested individuals for their comments. These comments must be received by the Municipality by April 30, 1974, for evaluation and possible implementation into the final specification which is scheduled for release about the middle of June, 1974.

In a telephone conversation with Assistant Chief Counsel Richard Dyson on March 26, 1974, I brought up a question related to bus brakes and FMVSS 121. The Municipality has a specification requirement for dynamic brakes on our new trolley buses in addition to the standard air brakes. We also have a specification requirement for an electric or hydraulic retarder on two of our new larger types of motor buses in addition to the standard air brakes. The question, as asked of the Municipality by an interested foreign manufacturer, is whether it is still necessary to provide anti-skid equipment or brake equalization with dynamic braking on the trolley bus, and whether it is necessary to provide anti-skid equipment or brake equalization with an electric or hydraulic retarder on the motor buses. The electric retarder operates off the gear box, drive shaft or differential and the hydraulic retarder operates off the transmission.

Mr. Dyson advised me to put the question with supplementary background in written form and address it to you for an interpretation and ruling. I have enclosed a copy of the letter regarding the brake question, a copy of the bus specification of the buses for the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, a copy of the information on the electrical retarder and a copy of the information on the hydraulic retarder.

We shall look forward to your reply so that we can advise potential bidders of this decision.

Very truly yours,

Alden G. Olson

Engineer/Transit Technology

Enclosures

TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT CO.

MARCH 14, 1974

John Aurelius Mgr., Transit Technology SEATTLE METRO 410 West Harrison Street Seattle, WA 98119

SUBJECT: FMVSS QUESTIONS

Arne Lindqvist and I finally caught up with each other in New York so we had an opportunity to discuss our mutual problems as they relate to bus production for the U.S. market.

As he told you, meeting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is a bit of a thorn for European producers inasmuch as there is a somewhat different approach to safety in Europe.

There is one important point which, to our knowledge, has not yet been clarified. This is the question of brake equalization in a trolley coach. With dynamic braking, is it still necessary to provide anti-skid equipment or brake equalization? Is it possible to obtain an exception?

This same line of thinking would lead us to similar questions relating to motor coaches. All new motor coaches in Switzerland are equipped with dynamic braking as are a high percentage of the new commercial vehicles in other countries. The Telma retarder would be recommended for the second and third axlesof the HESS articulated motor coach.

Can you secure a ruling on these points? Perhaps you have already explored this subject and can advise us.

Very truly yours,

H.T. HAWKES---President

ID: nht74-4.30

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Imperial-Eastman Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 21, 1974, question whether "I" or "II" should appear as a part of the label information on renewable 3/8-inch and 1/2-inch SP fittings.

It is not permissible to include type "I" or "II" in the labeling required on renewable fittings. S7.2 calls for the end fitting identification which appears in your letter, but S7.2 reserves the use of "I" and "II" for use in reusable assemblies, that is, assemblies which include reusable end fittings. The standard classifies renewable end fittings as a type of permanently-attached end fitting.

Yours truly

May 21, 1974

Legal Department National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attention: T. W. Herlihy

We manufacture a line of renewable fittings for 1/4, 3/8, 7/16, 1/2 and 5/8" I. D. air brake hose. These couplings have a deformable sleeve and can be assembled in our factory, or in the field, with hand tools. While the sleeve can only be used once, the other components can be reused with a new sleeve (hence, the name renewable).

According to our interpretation of FMVSS 106, these fittings will now fall into the permanently attached coupling classification. However, because they are not two piece end fittings attached by crimping or swaging, they must be permanently labeled.

After carefully studying the DOT specificaion, we have decided on the following marking for each size of fitting (the hose involved is SAE J1402 Type A and Type B). HOSE I. D. COUPLING IDENTIFICATION 1/4 DOT ** A 1/4 3/8 * DOT ** A 3/8 7/16 DOT ** A 7/16 1/2 SP * DOT ** A 1/2 SP 5/8 DOT ** A 5/8

* Shown on reusable assembly Table III.

My question is this - What, if any, designation must appear after the letter "A" on the 3/8 and 1/2 SP. fittings? The above fittings are compatible with both SAE Type A and Type B hose and your Table III does not specify which type is represented by your Type I or Type II and the dimensions of each hose are identical. Is it necessary to use I or II after the A's?

Your prompt reply will be greatly appreciated.

IMPERIAL-EASTMAN CORPORATION

Eastman Division

M. A. Chermak

Chief Product Engineer

ID: nht74-4.31

DATE: 03/15/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: New York State Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 7, 1974, inquiring whether the words "emergency door" may be used in lieu of "emergency exit" under S5.5 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217. You indicate that New York's regulations manual specifies the use of the words, "emergency door," and that a revised printing of the manual presently under way still contains this requirement.

While the NHTSA does not consider the phrase "emergency door" to be synonymous with emergency exit (we do not believe pushout windows or other non-door emergency exits are appropriately marked "emergency door"), we would not consider a bus to fail to conform to Standard No. 217 if its emergency doors were marked "emergency door." Emergency exists other than doors, however, must be marked emergency exit.

NHTSA standards apply only to vehicles manufactured after a standard's effective date. Standard No. 217 does not apply to buses in use that were manufactured before its effective date of September 1, 1973.

I point out that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act dealing with preemption of State requirements (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) prohibit New York from enforcing its requirement that emergency exits be marked "emergency door."

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

January 7, 1974

Jerry Palisi Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. John Murphy of this office informed me that he discussed with you our question concerning the use of the words "Emergency Door" in lieu of "Emergency Exit" as is apparently required by federal standards or regulations.

New York State has been requiring the use of words "Emergency Door" for many years now and it appears to us that it would be unreasonable to request a change in this regulation when considering the difference is only a matter of semantics. We feel quite certain that the use of the words "Emergency Door" will achieve the same result as the use of the words "Emergency Exit", and it is our suggestion that both expressions be permitted, if not on a permanent basis at least on a temporary basis until our rules are next amended.

We would appreciate whatever consideration you and your office can give to this request, as compliance at this particular time would create a considerable hardship. To illustrate, we have in circulation now between 4 and 5,000 copies of our current regulations and have already started the process of printing new regulations which will contain the words "Emergency Door". If the difference were significant, we would certainly consider changing our wording, but this is not the case and we would hope for some relief. Thanks for your help.

WILLIAM G. GALLOWAY, Director Traffic and Safety Division

By

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Inspection Section

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TO: Lawrence Schneider

Office of the Chief Counsel (N40-30)

FROM: Regional Administrator

Region II

DATE: January 11, 1974

In reply refer to:

0II-00.NHTSA

SUBJECT: Request for Exemption from or Modification to FMVSS

No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release"

The enclosed letter dated January 7, 1974, from Mr. Martin V. Chauvin, Chief, Carrier Inspection Section, New York State Department of Transportation, is a follow-up to a discussion with Mr. Guy Hunter, Office of Crashworthiness, M.V.P.

New York is questioning the requirements of Section S5.5 of the above Standard, specifically the designation, "Emergency Exit".

We would appreciate a direct response to New York and an informational copy to our office.

Jerome A. Palisi

Highway Safety Management Specialist

Attachment

ID: nht74-4.32

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 10, 1974, request for permission to stamp label information on hose assemblies in place of banding, and to reduce S9.2.5 burst pressure from 350 to 100 psi, and your further request for an interpretation of the status of an in-line check valve as part of a vacuum brake hose.

The in-line check valve is not subject to Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, as a brake hose and fitting. In this configuration, the couplers depicted in your drawing are the clamps, and the check valve is a separate component to which the hose assemblies are attached.

The issue of stamping instead of banding will be answered in our upcoming Notice 11 in response to petitions for reconsideration of the brake hose standard.

Your petition for a reduction in the burst strength requirement for vacuum hoses is denied. The minimum burst pressure of 350 psi was established by the Society of Automotive Engineers in 1942, taking into consideration the effects of backfire pressure and the severe underhood environment to which vacuum hose may be exposed. Hoses with this burst pressure have provided excellent reliability and durability. We have no data to justify a reduction in burst strength in view of the two hazards just cited.

MAY 10, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration US Department of Transportation

Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106

(Docket no. 1-5, Notice 10

According to Notice 10 the designation of fittings was dropped due to objections raised by various manufactures because of insufficient clearness. For years we successfully used to emboss the date of manufacture on to the fittings (after the swaging process). We therefore ask you to extend item S 5.2.4 to the effect that in case of two-piece end fittings, which are attached by crimping or swaging, embossing of the designation on to the fittings will also be allowed instead of using a band.

The present standard according to which only a band will be allowed would be connected with a high degree of capital expenditure (reconstruction of entire assembly machinery) for the manufacturing department of Alfred Teves GmbH.

As far as vacuum brake hoses (see item S 9.2.5) are concerned, we think that a 350 psi burst strength is too high. The maximum operating pressure amounts to a vacuum of 0,80 bar, so that the required 350 psi would mean a 27-fold safety.

For this field of application a burst strength of 100 psi is sufficient. We therefore ask you to amend item S 9.2.5 to the effect that in the case of vacuum brake tubes the burst strength will be reduced to 100 psi.

Our production programm also comprises a vacuum check valve, which 1st mounted between two vacuum brake tubes, according to the attached sketch. We kindly ask you to inform us whether in the case of vacuum check valves the same requirements as are applicable for complete brake tubes regarding a burst strength of 350 psi (item S 9.2.5) and a minimum cross-section of 70% (item S 9.2.1) will be made.

Considering the near effective date of FMVSS, we would like to receive your answer concerning the three items mentioned above as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

ppa.

i.V.

BELLER

Attachment

1 sketch

Ruckschiagventil

Schlauchhalter

Vakuumschiauch

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-4.33

DATE: 07/08/74

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

TO: Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 28, 1974, question whether a short neoprene connector of two steel vacuum brake lines in the Bendix Hydrovac unit is subject to Standard No. 106, Brake hoses.

The neoprene connector functions as a brake hose under the definition set out in the standard:

"Brake hose" means a flexible conduit that transmits or contains the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

The determination of the "flexibility" of a particular brake line material is a difficult but important decision. Flexibility is required in brake lines for at least two reasons. First and most important is the flexibility required to accommodate large amounts of relative motion in service, in frame-to-axle applications for example. Less obvious but important is the flexibility required in the event a brake line is displaced during repair or alteration of the brake system or other nearby vehicle components. A mechanic's decision to bend a brake line during repairs may depend on whether it "looks" flexible, and therefore appearance becomes an important element of the determination. On this basis the NHTSA has concluded that copper and steel chassis plumbing, for example, do not invite bending during repairs because their appearance makes their relative inflexibility obvious.

In contrast, plastic air brake chassis plumbing and small sections of hose used to connect steel or copper tubing, are examples of "flexible conduits" that invite bending in order to make repairs. To ensure that these "flexible conduits" are not damaged when they are displaced, they are considered brake hose subject to the bend and deformation requirements of the standard. In the case of the Hydrovac, the presence of the neoprene connector would appear to permit flexibility to compensate for component misalignment and to permit removal and repair of the steel tubing. It therefore is considered a brake hose under this standard.

Sincerely Yours,

The Bendix Corporation

Docket Section

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

May 28, 1974

Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Clarification of Certain Portions of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106

Clarification is requested concerning the requirements of FMVSS 106 (published in Notices 8 and 10 of Docket No. 1-5) as applied to the Vacuum Tube - Fig. 1 (Enclosure 1) used in our Hydrovac in-line vacuum/hydraulic brake booster. For convenience, a detail drawing of the Vacuum Tube is shown in Fig. 2 (Enclosure 2

On October 17, 1973, Bendix stated its opinion to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) regarding applicability of its regulations to the above-mentioned Vacuum Tube (Enclosure 3) and requested comments from BMCS. In reply, BMCS (Enclosure 4) concurred with Bendix' interpretation stating that "the use of 'tubing' rather than 'hose' is appropriate."

The request to BMCS was concerned primarily with BMCS' requirements for cord or duck ply in hose construction. We do not believe there is a question of construction of the tube as related to FMVSS 106; however, Enclosres 3 and 4 are included herewith only to help clarify the nature of the present request.

Reviewing the text of the Standard and the introductory comments to Notices 8 and 10, we are led to the conclusion that the definition of "Brake Hose" (S4, Paragraph 2) does not apply to the Bendix Vacuum Tube because of the lack of any requirement for flexibility. This conclusion seems to be supported by the lack of any bend requirement in Table V for hoses shorter than fourteen (14) inches in the diameter in question. On the other hand, the Bendix Vacuum Tube does "transmit or contains the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes". Hence, NHTSA is requested to verify Bendix' interpretation that FMVSS 106 is not applicable to the Bendix Vacuum Tube.

Your consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated in order to clarify the status of this part of the Hydrovac, which is a high volume component.

Respectfully submitted,

J. R. Farron

Group Director of Engineering

Enclosures (4)

FIG 1. SINGLE DIAPHRAGM HYDROVAC

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

The Bendix Corporation

October 17, 1973

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Attention: Docket Clerk

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety

Subject: Request for Clarification of Subchapter B - Motor Carrier

Safety Regulation, Part 393 - Parts and Accessories

Necessary for Safe Operation

Our review of Docket No. MC-41; Notice 73-9 has brought to our attention a need for clarification of the Part 393 of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

The vacuum tubes for Bendix' Hydrovacs, an in-line vacuum/hydraulic brake booster, may fall within the provisions of Parts (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(ii) of Section 393.45 of the above reference. The item under discussion is noted as "Vacuum Tube" in Fig. 1. The cited Parts of the Regulation call for conformance of vacuum brake hose to SAE Standards which requires cord or duck ply reinforcement, whereas Bendix' tube is solid neoprene rubber. The detail drawing of the Vacuum Tube is given in Fig. 2.

One logical interpretation of the Regulation could conclude that it is intended to specify vacuum hose only between brake system components, and not specify hose where it is an integral part of a component such as the tube used in our Hydrovacs. It appears the Regulation's thrust is to avoid arbitrary selection from many types of hose which are available in bulk form, particularly in the field, and to assure sound installation of a flexible member that is formed as it is installed. This reasoning is exemplified by Part (a) of the Regulation which covers "General Requirements".

Our vacuum tube, on the other hand, is fully specified as to type, and is formed before installation, just as is any other part of the Hydrovac.

Bendix' historical experience indicates that the tube has been used in 8,000,000 Hydrovacs produced since 1947, and to our knowledge there have been no tube failures. It is not of SAE grade hose because it is used as a connector, as opposed to flexible plumbing in the vehicle vacuum system.

For purposes of clarification due to ambiguity in the language of the cited Parts, it is requested that you confirm our interpretation that the cited Sections of the Regulation do not apply to the vacuum tube used as an integral part of the Hydrovac.

If this request cannot be granted, we hereby enter a petition to change the cited sections as follows (added words underlined):

(b) (1) Change to read: "except as provided in Paragraph (c), brake hose installed on a motor vehicle for connection between brake system components on or after October 1, 1973, must conform to one of the following specifications"

(b) (2) Change to read: "except as provided in Paragraph (c), brake hose installed on a motor vehicle for connection between brake system components before October 1, 1973, must conform to either"

Your consideration and response to this request will be appreciated.

J. R. Farron

Group Director of Engineering