ID: nht75-1.41

DATE: 11/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of March 19, 1975, requesting clarification of the relationship between the masking requirement and the brake hose assembly performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

On August 1, 1975, the NHTSA issued a notice delaying until March 1, 1976, the effective date of the masking requirement, in order to allow time for public comment on its proposed elimination. Copies of this and a more recent notice are enclosed.

If the standard is amended to eliminate the masking requirement, the issues which you have raised will be mooted. Otherwise, these issues will be dealt with in an upcoming Federal Register notice.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

March 19, 1975

Chief Council's Office -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

If you would, I would like some clarification on FMVSS-106. My question is in regards to effective dates.

First, we understand that all fittings, tubings and hoses in the air brake system must now meet all performance requirements of the 106 regulation. We further understand that all fittings, tubings and hoses must be properly labeled and that the assembler, except the vehicle manufacturer, must band to indicate his certification. The vehicle manufacturer will certify his assembly by the normal certification label installed on the vehicle.

Regarding the labels, we are now receiving fittings properly labeled and the assembler bands are installed as required and are properly labeled. The tubings and hoses, even though they meet the performance requirements, are in most cases not labeled. This, we understand, has been approved.

We understand that painting over the embossed type labels on fitting and banding is completely satisfactory. However, masking must be done at least one place on each tube or hose for identification. It would be useless for us as a manufacturer to mask tubing and hoses that have no label.

It is our understanding that tubing and hose must be properly labeled and that we as a manufacturer must so protect this label as outlined above no later than 31 August, 1975. Is this correct?

We have to problem areas.

1. In our tubing assembly from the front connector to the running gear area. In this area we will install a protective sleeve over the tubing in our assembly process. This can be done without real complications, as we are making the assembly.

2. The major problem area is in the hose assembly purchased with permanent end fittings. In many cases the end fittings are large with relation to the hose size. Therefore, it is desirable for the assembler to install this protective sleeve to fit the hose, rather than us install a large sleeve to clear the fitting that may not do a good job.

I would appreciate your review of this problem area and would like to have a clarification in the labeling requirements.

Sincerely, Dudley E. DeWitt -- Manager, Research & Development

cc: Don W. Wieriman - TTMA

ID: nht75-1.42

DATE: 07/14/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Hendrickson Mfg. Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of March 26, 1975, requesting an interpretation of the masking requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

The requirement that the label on a brake hose remain visible after painting was amended on March 17, 1975, (40 FR 12088, Docket No. 1-5, Notice 16) to permit the label to remain masked if (1) the masking material is affixed in such a way that no adhesive contacts any part of the label and (2) the masking is manually removable. Since the requirement that the label be masked or visible, rather than obscured, is a vehicle requirement, it is not effective until September 1, 1975. Vehicles manufactured before that date may contain hose which has been painted over.

ID: nht75-1.43

DATE: 03/07/75

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

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht75-1.44

DATE: 12/01/75

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

TO: Detroit Testing Laboratory

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your November 7, 1975, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning testing for the performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. I understand that you have a contract with a hose manufacturer to perform certification testing of the brake hose and brake hose assemblies which he manufactuers, and that four motorcycle companies purchase assemblies from your client which are identical but for their varying lengths.

As Mr. Schwimmer explained, Standard No. 106-74 does not specify the testing which a manufacturer must do before certifying that his hose and assemblies comply; it does specify the performance levels which these products must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for compliance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, requires the manufacturer to conduct a notification and remedy campaign with respect to noncomplying hose and assemblies. He is 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 he performs has no effect on his notification and remedy obligations. The civil penalty liability, however, does not apply to a person who establishes that he did not, while exercising due care, have reason to know that his product did not comply. "Due care" is a legal concept evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the size of the company, the amount of testing performed, and other factors.

ID: nht75-1.45

DATE: 10/06/75

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

TO: Joseph Lucas North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 29, 1975, asking whether two of your processes for labeling brake hose may be considered "permanent" for purposes of Standard No. 106-74.

As used in our standards and regulations, the requirement for a "permanent" label generally contemplates a label that will remain legible for the expected life of the product under normal conditions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects a manufacturer to make a reasonable, good-faith determination in this respect. The two labeling samples that you submitted as examples of your processes appear to be permanent.

We are presently re-examining the requirement for permanent labeling of brake hose, and a Federal Register notice in this area may be issued shortly.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

May 29, 1975

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

BRAKE HOSE LABELING METHODS

Although we have previously corresponded with you on the subject of brake hose labeling (see attached copy letters: JLNA of September 30, 1974 and NHTSA of October 10, 1974), this present letter seeks your opinion specifically on the method of labeling.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106 requires that brake hoses be permanently labeled, but we know of no standard against which this permanence can be measured.

We wish to continue using hydraulic brake hoses with a "herringbone" surface pattern. Samples are enclosed. Two methods of labeling are available to us and we hope that you approve both.

Method 1. The Hot Foil Process.

Our hoses have always used this process and these hoses have been certified by independent laboratories, the AAMVA and Pennsylvania as complying with regulations.

"Hot Foil" marking is a transfer process in which a heated platten with the legend embossed on it is pressed through a plastic foil on to the rubber hose after the herringbone pattern has been formed and after the rubber hose has been cured (vulcanized). This transfers the legend in plastic foil to the hose.

Sample X attached was labeled in this way.

Method 2. Offset Printing.

In this process, the legend in ink is applied to the hose after extrusion, but before the "herringbone" surface is formed and before the hose is cured.

We understand this process is common for such applications in the USA.

Sample Y attached was labeled in this way.

Since both of these methods are established processes for the purpose of labeling brake hoses, we hope that you will give your approval to them in principle as being acceptable means for "permanent" marking.

Yours truly,

JOSEPH LUCAS NORTH AMERICA INC. -- A. G. Burgess, Vice President (Technical)

Enclosures: Letters (2); Hose X; Hose Y;

cc: F. Redler, with enclosures

September 30, 1974

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

GIRLING HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSE

Girling Limited of Birmingham, England are assemblers of hydraulic brake hoses. These are sold as original equipment primarily to vehicle manufacturers in the United Kingdom. Some of these vehicles are exported to the United States.

Joseph Lucas North America Inc., imports Girling brake hoses for sale as service replacements in the USA.

Two samples of a 1/8" hydraulic brake hose are enclosed for your examination and confirmation that the markings are in accordance with FMVSS 106.

Yours truly,

JOSEPH LUCAS NORTH AMERICA INC. -- A. J. Burgess, Vice President (Technical)

Enclosures: 2 hoses.

ID: nht75-1.46

DATE: 09/24/75

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Imperial-Eastman Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 28, 1975, in which you petitioned for the replacement of the "permanent" labeling requirement for brake hose in Standard No. 106-74 with a "weather resistant" test requirement. You also asked whether a series of dots may be included after the required date information on the hose, to indicate in coded form the day or manufacture.

With respect to your petition, this agency is reconsidering the permanency requirement for the labeling, and a notice is planned for issuance shortly on the subject. We do not find an additional test requirement for the labeling to be justified, on the basis of data presently before the agency, since the usefulness of the labeling is limited primarily to the pre-assembly period. Therefore, in the strict sense your petition is hereby denied. You may find, however, that the changes now being developed in our rulemaking proceedings will resolve your problem in this area.

The standard does not permit the use of coded dots indicating production date in the location specified for the required information. S5.2.2(c) specifies the following information as part of the required label:

The month, day, and year, or the month and year, of manufacture, expressed in numerals. For example, 10/1/74 means October 1, 1974.

Our interpretation of S5.2 (as incorporated in S7.2) is that the required information may not be interrupted by optional information. Therefore, the day of manufacture, if indicated as part of the S5.2.2 legend, must be expressed in numerals. You may, of course, use the coded dots if they appear on the opposite side of the hose.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Imperial-Eastman Corporation

May 28, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74

Gentlemen:

Please consider the following two areas of concern regarding the reference Standard:

1. The labeling requirements for air brake hose per S7.2, which refers to S5.2 on hydraulic brake hose, include the term ". . . shall be permanently labeled . . ."

Interpretation of the word "permanently" is creating a problem between suppliers and users because there is no test procedure to evaluate permanency.

To clarify the requirement, we hereby petition that the first paragraph of S5.2.2 be revised to the following:

"Each hydraulic brake hose shall be marked with a weather resistant label at intervals of not more than 6 inches, measured from the end of one legend to the beginning of the next, in block capital letters and numerals at least one-eight of an inch high, with the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e). The label shall remain legible after 24 hours of exposure to salt spray. (S6.9)".

The title of S6.9 should correspondingly be changed to:

S6.9 End fitting corrosion resistance and label weather resistance test.

2. Please furnish an opinion on the legality of including a series of dots in the labeling of air brake hose. The dots would appear after the date (month and year) to indicate the working day of manufacture.

This system would allow us to satisfy internal needs for a lot coding system and avoid the extremely high cost of discarding the higher quality engraved marking wheels on a daily basis.

The dots would not interfere with or preclude the other required information.

Please give these two matters your prompt attention to allow us to confidently assure our customers of conformance to MVSS 106 with our C6 nylon air brake tubing.

Thank you for your cooperation. We look forward to an expeditious reply.

Sincerely,

William J. Kronschnable -- Assistant Chief Engineer, Synthetic Products

cc: Fred Redler - National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration

ID: nht75-1.47

DATE: 05/21/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Alan Cranston, U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter of April 14, 1975, in which you requested information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 (49 CFR Part 571.106-74) and its relation to the enclosed letter you had received from Mr. Thomas Z. Marshall of San Francisco.

Standard No. 106-74 specifies performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. Because labeling applied to hose and end fittings cannot satisfactorily identify the manufacturer of an assembly made up of those components, S7.2 of the standard (by incorporating S5.2.4) requires certain assemblies to be labeled by means of a band. By identifying the manufacturer and the date of production, this band permits both the enforcement of the standard's performance requirements and the tracing of defective assemblies.

Mr. Marshall appears to have misunderstood some aspects of the standard. While each manufacturer of brake hose assemblies must initially inform the NHTSA of the identifying designation he intends to use on his bands, there is no requirement that he keep records of assemblies made or send such records to this agency. In addition, the bands need not be metallic, but may be of other materials which are less expensive to produce. Mr. Marshall has correctly pointed out, however, that the standard in its present form specifies the same requirements for large manufacturers, repair shops, and individual truck owners. In recognition of the burdens thus imposed on a person who manufacturers only a small number of assemblies, the NHTSA proposed an amendment of the definition of brake hose assembly, to exclude certain assemblies from the requirements of the standard (40 FR 8962, March 4, 1975, copy enclosed). We expect to act on that proposal in the near future.

Sincerely,

2 Enclosures Constituent's letter

United States Senate WASHINGTON, D.C. 20518

April 14, 1975

To: Office of Congressional Liaison -- Department of Transportation

Enclosure from: Thomas Z. MArshall -- Waits Motor Supply Co., 234 - 7th Street, San Francisco, California 94103

Re: Please explain and give current information on the new truck regulation, 106 Air Brake Standard.

I forward the attached for your consideration.

Your report, in duplicate, along with the return of the enclosure will be appreciated.

Sincerely

Alan Cranston

Please address envelope to: Senator Alan Cranston Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Att: M. Bleeke

Feb. 18, 1975

Senator Alan Cranston Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C.

re: FMVSS(DOT) 106 Air Brake Standard

Dear Senator Cranston:

Please have some of your staff look into what the National Hwy. Traffic Safety Commission is up to.

I am enclosing a reprint of only a portion of the subject regulation.

Please understand that these people are requiring that over 400,000 truck fleets, shops, and purveyors of hose register and receive a registration number; (2) Each fabricator (except Original Equipment Manufacturer) will have to fabricate a metal tag and affix same to assembly (3) he will also have to keep records of assemblies made and send these reports to Wash.

Can you see the number of bumbling bureaucrats the administration of this law will require. I heard today that one enterprising manufacturer is out selling a tag marking machine at $ 80 each. Multiply that out and see what a windfall profit someone is going to make; to say nothing of the profit in the repeat sale of the blank tags themselves.

Someone has sold this agency a bill of goods. They don't want to listen to reason. They are hell bent to see that their stupidity doesn't come to light.

Someone must rise up and say, "let's wait a minute."

Do you realize that the owner of one truck, if he does his own repair, will have to register if he wants to save money by making his own hose assembly? This is where this regulation is viscious and inflationary.

If you are just going to send me the usual "kiss off" letter and file this in the file 13, don't bother to reply. If you are really interested in looking into this rather than the headline grabbing CIA, FBI and Watergate matters, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Very truly yours, Thomas Z. Marshall, Pres. -- WAIT MOTOR SUPPLY CO.

Labeling

A. Hose and Tubing

1. Must have a layline consisting of the following:

a. The symbol DOT, constituting a certification by the manufacturer that the hose and tubing conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

b. Manufacturers identification can presently be any symbol, trademark, letters, etc., which have been files by letter with NHTSA. Our (Illegible Symbol) has been registered and will be used on hose, tubing and couplings manufactured by I-E.

c. The month, day or year, or the month and year of manufacture, expressed in numerals.

d. The nominal inside diameter of the hose expressed in inches or fractions of inches, or the nominal outside diameter of the tube expressed in inches or fractions of inches followed by the letters OD.

e. The letter "A" to indicate the hose or tube is for use in "Air Brake" assemblies.

2. No additional information is allowed on the DOT layline; however, a second layline (180 degrees away) is permissible with any information desired. I-E hose and tubing will have an additional layline to identify our style, size, etc.

3. Examples of DOT hose and tube marking:

(Graphics Omitted)

B. Couplings

1. All reusable and renewable couplings must be labeled.

Permanently attached crimped or swaged couplings do not require any marking.

All fittings which are labeled need the DOT marking on only one piece of the coupling.

2. Coupling marking shall be as follows:

a. The symbol DOT, constituting a certification by the fitting manufacturer that the end fitting conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

b. Manufacturer identification. Our (Illegible Symbol) has been registered and will be used on couplings manufactured by I-E.

c. The letter "A" to indicate the fitting is for use in "Air Brake" hose assemblies.

d. The nominal inside diameter of the hose to which the fitting is properly attached expressed in inches or fractions of inches, or the outside diameter of the tube to which the fitting is properly attached expressed in inches or fractions of inches followed by the letters OD.

3. Example of DOT coupling marking:

(Graphics Omitted)

C. Assemblies

1. As of March 1, 1975 each brake hose assembly, except those assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly. The band may be attached so as to move freely along the length of the assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fittings.

2. The band shall be permanently etched, embossed, or stamped with the following:

a. The symbol DOT, constituting certification by the hose assembler that the hose assembly conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

b. A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly. Our (Illegible Symbol) with a letter indicating assembler has been registered and will be used on hose assemblies manufactured by I-E.

c. The month, day and year, or the month and year of assembly.

2. Example of DOT hose assembly band marking:

(Graphics Omitted)

Summary

1. The new regulations are law and everyone concerned with vehicle brake hoses, brake hose end fittings and brake hose assemblies used on vehicles manufactured for use on the public streets, roads and highways must comply.

2. State of Pennsylvania Approval of Air Brake Hose. Until recently it was apparent that the labeling of air brake hose would still be required. However, Pennsylvania has bowed to federal jurisdiction and will now accept FMVSS 106 as the governing authority for brake hose assemblies.

It is still necessary for hose manufacturers to obtain Pennsylvania State approval on all brake hoses. Only now the approval testing will be done to the FMVSS 106 requirements and not SAE requirements.

3. Please remember that FMVSS 106 pertains only to products intended for use in brake systems. Any I-E hose or fittings manufactured for use in auxiliary air or hydraulic applications can be used without falling under the jurisdiction of FMVSS 106.

4. Registration.

A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose, hose fittings and hose assembly shall be filed in writing with:

Office of Standards Enforcement Brake Hose Identification National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: FMVSS 106

5. Questions on FMVSS 106.

Anyone may contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for interpretations of the standard. If calling, they may answer your question on the telephone, but will probably ask that you put the questions in writing and send you a letter in reply.

ID: nht75-1.48

DATE: 09/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transcraft Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation of September 9, 1975, with Mark Schwimmer of this agency, concerning the testing of brake hose assemblies pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74.

As Mr. Schwimmer explained, the standard does not specify the testing which you must conduct; it does specify the criteria which the assemblies must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for compliance. While the surest way for you to be confident of compliance would be to follow the procedures in every detail, you are not legally obligated to do so. Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), requires you to assure yourself that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the procedures set out in the standard, your assemblies will meet the specified criteria. In addition, you are required to repair or replace without charge noncomplying assemblies. In the event of noncompliance or failure to remedy the noncompliance, the Act specifies a civil penalty not to exceed $ 1000 for each violation (and not to exceed $ 800,000 for any related series of violations). The exercise of due care in ensuring that the assemblies comply with the standard is a defense to an action for civil penalties for noncompliance. In such a situation, however, the Act nevertheless requires you to remedy the noncompliance.

If you manufacture brake hose assemblies and install them in vehicles which are also manufactured by you, then those assemblies are exempted by S5.2.4 of the standard from the requirement that assemblies be labeled by means of a band.

ID: nht75-1.49

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pirelli Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of May 5, 1975, which inquired about the permissibility of iron-branding the letters "N.A." on the sidewall of certain passenger car tires to indicate that they are not adjustable under your warranty.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, specifies labeling and performance requirements for such tires. The NHTSA has no objection to the provision of additional labeling information such as the "N.A." which you have suggested. However, the tire must continue to be capable of meeting the standard's performance requirements at the completion of the hot-branding process.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

May 5, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel -- N.H.T.S.A. Att: Mark Schwimmer, attorney

Sir:

In reference to the phone conversation Friday morning, I am sending you a written request for the following information:

We would like to know if there are some objections from your office to iron-brand N.A. (not adjustable) tires which may present possible vibrations, bleeding white sidewall, unbalance or which may not deliver the 40.000 mile guarantee even though they belong to a tire line which has the 40.000 mile guarantee.

The tires involved (which are approximately 5000 units) will be sold at a discount of about 50%.

Of course such tires have all the safety guarantee as the regular premium ones.

Your prompt attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, PIRELLI TIRE CORPORATION -- G. Buzzi-Ferraris, Technical Manager

ID: nht75-1.5

DATE: 04/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Kazuhiko Aoki

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 22 1975 N40-30 TWH)

Mr. Kazuhiko Aoki 2-3 Nihonbashi Koami-cho 1-chome Chuo-ku/ Toykyo, Japan 103

Dear Mr. Aoki:

This responds to your January 30, 1975, question whether the test procedure of S7.7.1 in Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, refers to the parking brake in the next to the last sentence which states that it "may be necessary to reapply it if the vehicle moves slightly" (emphasis added).

The word "it" refers to the service brake system, and not the parking brake system. This sentence permits application of the service brake only, which has the effect of taking up parking brake system slack due to rotation of the brake shoes and drum prior to bottoming against the anchor pin.

Sincerely,

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel