ID: nht75-1.21

DATE: 03/13/75

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

TO: Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht75-1.22

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 12, 1975, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to an anchor coupling.

You enclosed a diagram depicting the installation of two of these couplings, and suggested that they are not subject to the labeling requirements of the standard. This interpretation is correct. "Brake hose end fitting" is defined in Standard No. 106-74 as:

a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose.

The anchor couplings which you have described are attached to the ends of completed brake hose assemblies, rather than to the ends of brake hoses. Therefore, they are not "brake hose end fittings" subject to the standard's requirements.

It appears from your letter that you might not consider the nylon tubing to be "brake hose." If the nylon tubing is flexible, however, such an interpretation would be incorrect. "Brake hose" is defined in the standard 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.

Thus flexible chassis plumbing and other flexible conduits, in addition to rubber brake hoses, are subject to the standard's requirements.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

American Trailers, Inc.

August 12, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. To - Docket 1 - 5, Brake Hoses

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: Anchor Couplings

In a sliding suspension condition we use an anchor coupling fitting to join the nylon tubing assembly to the rubber air hose assembly. See the attached sketch. Our question is, whether or not the anchor coupling must meet the labeling requirements of FMVSS-106? Fitting manufacturers to-date have indicated that labeling is not required at this point since the coupling is not part of the air hose assembly.

Your earliest reply would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jerry W. McNeil Director Of Engineering

cc: D. Wieriman; TTMA

(Graphics omitted)

AMERICAN TRAILERS, INC. OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.

Name ANCHOR COUPLING LOCATION

Drawn By: McBay

Date: 8-11-75

Drawing No. 1-32-0006

ID: nht75-1.23

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of March 24, 1975, to Mr. Schwimmer of this office concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to new brake hose assemblies whose end fittings are partially disassembled by vehicle manufacturers.

You have described brake hose assemblies equipped with permanent end fittings containing sacrificial sleeves. Although the assemblies are complete when delivered by you to a vehicle manufacturer, they must be partially disassembled by him (because they lack swivel fittings) to facilitate installation in vehicles. At this point the vehicle manufacturer does, as you have suggested, become the hose assembler, assuming responsibility for the assemblies' compliance with the standard and relieving you of responsibility for their continued compliance. He is not, however, required to remove the assembler's band which you have installed pursuant to S5.2.4 (as incorporated by reference in S7.2 and S9.1), although he is free to do so; nor is he required to install his own band, because of the exception in S5.2.2 for assemblies which are assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in his own vehicles. Furthermore, he is not required to replace the sacrificial sleeve in the end fittings, because that sleeve has not yet been used.

An aftermarket purchaser who disassembles and then reassembles one of your assemblies also relieves you of responsibility for its continued compliance with the standard. He is not required to remove your assembler's band, nor is he required to replace the sacrificial sleeve.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

POWER CONTROLS DIVISION Midland-Ross Corporation

March 24, 1975

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

Subject: Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106-74, Brake Hoses

Dear Mr. Schwimmer:

We manufacture air brake hose end fittings and make hose assemblies for original equipment and aftermarket applications. We produce two basic sytles of end fittings; the type that are crimped or swaged onto the hose, and the type that utilizes a sacrificial sleeve or ferrule. These fittings are assembled on fabric reinforced rubber air brake hose (S.A.E. types A and B) only. We are aware that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, regards both of these designs as permanent end fittings. Several questions have arisen regarding technicalities and responsibilities as interpreted through Standard No. 106-74. Rulings by you or your office are requested on the following specific questions:

1. Hose assemblies are produced for sale to a vehicle manufacturer. The end fittings used are of the sacrificial sleeve type construction. These end fittings do not contain a swivel, as in the crimped fitting design. When we produce these assemblies, they are complete, finished and tagged assemblies, meeting the requirements of Standard No. 106-74. Representative samples of our production are audit tested to verify the compliance. After the hose assemblies are received by the vehicle manufacturer, he must partially disassemble the end fittings (due to the lack of a swivel fitting) in order to secure the hose assembly to the air brake system component. At this point we seek interpretations of the following questions.

a. Does the vehicle manufacturer now become the "hose assembler" and therefore assume all responsibilities of Standard No. 106-74 as the assembler, as well as exonerate us of all the responsibilities as the assembler?

b. If "a" above is answered affirmatively, then should the vehicle manufacturer be obligated to remove our assembler's compliance and identification tag?

c. Is the vehicle manufacturer obligated to replace the sacrificial sleeve in the fittings, even though the hose assembly has not been "used" prior to his installation of the assembly?

2. This same situation could occur in the aftermarket, but with little or no control from our standpoint. We are required by Standard No. 106-74 to tag each assembly. If your ruling to questions 1.a. and 1.b. above is affirmative, then we have no way of knowing if the aftermarket purchaser removes our tag as the vehicle manufacturer would be compelled to do. We can check on an original equipment manufacturer's procedures relatively easily, but it would be virtually impossible for us to police the aftermarket to determine if our compliance and identification tag were wrongfully attached to the assemblies in question. Therefore, in the aftermarket situation we request a ruling to the same three questions as asked in 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c above as they apply to aftermarket sales.

Very truly yours,

Leon C. Huneke -- Chemical Engineer

ID: nht75-1.24

DATE: 03/18/75

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

TO: Stratoflex, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to confirm the interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, which I gave in a telephone conversation on February 27, 1975.

S5.2.4 of the standard requires each brake hose assembly to be labeled with a band. The band must include, among other information, "a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly. . . ." A brake hose distributor who manufactures assemblies at multiple locations is not required to assign a designation to each location; a single designation will suffice.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Department of Transportation -- Office of Chief Counsel

Subject: February 6, 1975 Inquiry on Paragraph S5.2.4 of FMVSS 106 (Tagging Requirement)

Attn: Mark Schwimmer

Dear Mr. Schwimmer;

An inquiry was made on February 6, 1975 at the Office of Chief Counsel to Mr. Mark Schwimmer regarding the FMVSS 106 labeling requirements per paragraph S5.2.4. This inquiry asked if an assembler with multiple locations was required to assign multiple designations. Mr. Schwimmer stated he could not answer the question as it was currently in process of discussion, however, within a few days time he would advise.

(Illegible Word) immediately enacted a "hold" on all phases of preparation (Illegible Word) compliance to "tagging" per S5.2.4 expecting clarification (Illegible Word) (Illegible Word) few days. The answer to this inquiry is essential in (Illegible Word) (Illegible Word) requirements for this national program.

On February 12, 1975 a meeting was conducted at the Office of Chief Counsel. In attendance were; Mark Schwimmer, D.O.T., Paul Hykes, ATA., Larry Strawhorn, ATA., C.P. Boling, Stratoflex. Discussed were all aspects of "Tagging" requirements including a request to exclude fleets from the tagging requirements at which time Office of Chief Counsel was unable to answer previous inquiry or comment on status except to say, "They will be able to advise in a few days." These 'few days' have now become weeks with no indication of a firm date established to answer our request.

This delay has now made it impossible for Stratoflex to complete a responsible national program that will effectively allow customers, which utilize bulk components, to comply by the current effective date of March 1, 1975.

We request that the effective date of March 1, 1975 be extended to allow time to reconsider our docket submittal of February 18, 1975 which extensively outlines the economic impact on fleet operators. ATA has determined that the total number of potential assembler's exceeds 4 million as presently defined. This figure alone raises the question of the tagging requirement being unrealistic to impose to administrate in addition to being of little or no value in (Illegible Word) the integrity of the end product.

Although we totally disagree with this imposed "tagging" requirement at the fleet level, Stratoflex has made and will continue to make an honest effort to fully comply with all aspects of FMVSS (Illegible Word) and reestablish a national program to support our customers.

C. P. Boling

SANTA ANA

February 18, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Attention: Mark Schwimmer -- Office of the Chief Counsel

Ref: FMVSS 106 Paragraph S5.2.4

Gentlemen:

We respectfully suggest that the implementation of the referenced tagging requirement, particularly at repair and maintenance levels, will result in an extreme inflationary impact on the trucking industry. Further, in view of the apparent massive effectivity, we seriously question the capabilities of involved suppliers to support this effort from an administrative and logistical standpoint. In this respect, we estimate that there are approximately 40,000 independent fleet or equipment operators that fabricate air brake hose assemblies in maintaining their equipment. In addition, we believe there are approximately 60,000 equipment and component dealerships that are active suppliers to the truck market. The potential effectivity of your labeling/tagging requirement could reasonably be expanded to supplier operations other than those that are primarily related to the automative or trucking industry: many mill supply, hydraulic, and farm equipment outlets service the trucking industry by means of providing hose, fittings, or hose assemblies. The collective effect of your regulation could involve several million suppliers.

Our Mr. C. P. Boling visited your office on February 12 and requested clarification or interpretation regarding several facets of the tagging requirement. On behalf of our customers that operate multiple repair operations, we requested clarification as to the necessity for a code number for each operating location. Additional clarification was requested as to applicability in view of the severe impact of this requirement as mentioned above.

As of this date, many of our questions are left unanswered and the effective date of the referenced regulation is eight working days away. As the primary hose and fitting supplier to the trucking industry, we are most concerned with any regulation that affects the sale and subsequent supply of our product line. In this regard, it is our intent to comply with all governmental regulations. However, it is our obligation to question the need for tagging operations at user level; and to question the basis under which effectivity at this trade level is necessary, practical, or in the public interest. We do not believe that the authors of the referenced regulation intended that this specific requirement encompass equipment operator maintenance facilities. Rather, the tagging of hose assemblies might properly include hose and fitting manufacturers.

In view of the apparent confusion as to who this specific requirement applies to, the potentially severe negative impact of mass effectivity, and the questions that still remain unanswered, we strongly recommend that tagging requirements per se be suspended pending a thorough evaluation. In any event, we urge that your office clarify the applicability of this specific requirement as related to users or fleets that are primarily involved with repairing or maintaining their equipment. If this requirement is applicable to equipment maintenance facilities, we believe an unnecessary and costly burden will be placed on fleet operators, with no positive result that will contribute to public safety.

Yours very truly,

A. J. Bowie -- General Manager Western Operations

ID: nht75-1.25

DATE: 09/19/75

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

TO: The Weatherhead Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 9, 1975, concerning the banding requirements of Standard No. 106-74. You asked whether the requirement for a band may be avoided in the situation where a hose manufacturer makes a hose assembly to a vehicle manufacturer's "specified requirements," under the exception for hoses "assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer."

The exception in the standard for assemblies made by a vehicle manufacturer cannot be interpreted to apply to those made by a hose manufacturer, as you suggested, so the answer to your question must be no. It is the intent of the standard to distinguish between the two situations you described.

We are presently reviewing the labeling requirements of the brake hose standard in light of your letter and other information. If you wish to present further data and arguments toward the revocation of the banding requirement, the appropriate form in which to do so would be a petition for rulemaking under Part 552.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

July 9, 1975

Reference: MUE-561

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

Subject: Applicability Ruling FMVSS 571.106 Para. S5.2.4

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Hydraulic brake hose assemblies that are assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer need not be labeled by means of a band around the assembly. Elimination of this labeling band saves at least 3% on the cost of most hydraulic brake hose assemblies. The Weatherhead Company is not a vehicle manufacturer, therefore, the many millions of new vehicle hydraulic brake hose assemblies that we make are now costing 3% more than those assembled and installed by vehicle manufacturers. The resultant cost differential may cause The Weatherhead Company a substantial loss of business or a severe economic hardship. The vehicle manufacturers that are presently our customers may choose to assemble their own hydraulic brake hose to achieve reduced costs. Obviously, orders competitively bid with vehicle manufacturers will be lost or profits jeopardized due to the 3% cost differential.

Relief from this unnecessary burden can be obtained without regulatory effect by a favorable ruling on the applicability of Para. S5.2.4 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Counsel.

Question: Can "except for those assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him" (from Para. S5.2.4) be interpreted to include assemblies that are assembled by anyone (such as Weatherhead) so long as they are assembled to the vehicle manufacturer's specified requirements and are then installed in vehicles manufactured by him?

This ruling is considered appropriate by Weatherhead since new vehicle assemblies are certified by the vehicle manufacturer's certification of the complete vehicle and the assemblies are normally made to his specified requirements. In addition, absolute traceability of these new vehicle assemblies is already there without the labeling band. After-market assemblies would still have to be banded since they would not be installed by the vehicle manufacturer.

Your prompt response to our question of interpretation of applicability of the labeling rule for hydraulic brake hose assemblies would be appreciated.

Yours very truly,

THE WEATHERHEAD COMPANY

John H. Mueler, Manager, Engineering Standards

ID: nht75-1.26

DATE: 12/08/75

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

TO: Brainerd & Bridges

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your October 30, 1975, letter requesting clarification of the status of the banding requirement of Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has granted petitions, filed by General Motors Corporation and Ford Motor Company, which requested deletion of the banding requirement. This deletion is the "change now being developed in our rulemaking proceedings" to which you have referred. The complete elimination of the banding requirement is inconsistent with any substitute labeling requirement. The petition of your client, Kugelfischer Georg Shafer & Co., was denied for this reason.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. It does indicate, however, a determination that there is a reasonable possibility that the requested amendment will be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. If the NHTSA determines that such an amendment would not be appropriate, the amendment which you have requested will be considered as an alternative. We do expect to issue a proposal in the near future.

SINCERELY,

BRAINERD & BRIDGES

October 30, 1975

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

REF: N40-30

On September 29, 1975 you sent me a letter a photo of which is attached, in which your Department denied the petition of our client, Kugelfischer Georg Schafer & Co. for an amendment of the banding requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

In your letter you stated that the amendment has been denied because it ". . . is inconsistent with the deletion of the banding requirement": Of course the amendment went specifically to the request that the banding requirement be waived under circumstances in which positive identification through multiple other means was at all times assured. Waiver of the banding requirement under such circumstances would not have relinquished any advantage or omitted any function inasmuch as the sole purpose of the banding requirement is to insure identity of manufacturer.

In any event, you have also stated that perhaps a "change now being developed in the rulemaking proceedings will be satisfactory" to Kugelfischer Georg Schafer & Co.. Would you be kind to advise me when such change is expected and what the nature thereof may be. Our client is intimately concerned with this problem and regrets that our prior petitions were sufficiently unclear as to have failed to explain the redundancy of the banding requirement under circumstances in which manufacturer-identity is otherwise clearly established.

Andrew W. Brainerd

ID: nht75-1.27

DATE: 09/29/75

FROM: ANDREW G. DETRICH FOR ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Brainerd & Bridges

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to the May 26, 1975, petition of your client, Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer & Co., for an amendment of the banding requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has granted the petitions of General Motors Corporation and Ford Motor Company to delete the banding requirement. A proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced. Because the amendment requested by your client is inconsistent with the deletion of the banding requirement, in the strict sense, that petition is hereby denied. You may find, however, that the change now being developed in our rulemaking proceedings will be satisfactory to your client.

ID: nht75-1.28

DATE: 09/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Hydraulic Hose Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 28, 1975, concerning the banding requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

Notice 18 (40 FR 38159, August 27, 1975) amended the standard to facilitate the depletion of inventories of brake hose, end fittings, and assemblies which do not meet certain labeling requirements. With regard to the assembly banding requirement, the amendment merely extends the period during which vehicle manufacturers may use unbanded assemblies which were manufactured before March 1, 1975. There is no change in the requirement that assemblies manufactured on and after that date (other than those assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him) be labeled with a band as specified in S5.2.4 of the standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

August 28, 1975

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

Gentlemen:

Would you please render a legal interpretation on Notice 18 of MVSS 106. The specific question is if assembliers of hydraulic brake hose assemblies are still required to "label by means of a band around (hydraulic) brake hose assembly" as orginally required in S 5.2.4 of MVSS 106. We are currently labeling by such a band.

Thank you,

CONTINENTAL HYDRAULIC HOSE CORP. -- John H. Elgin, Vice President

Attachment Omitted.

ID: nht75-1.29

DATE: 04/29/75

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

TO: Ohio Hydraulics

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 7, 1975, to Mr. Francis Armstong of this agency, concerning possible changes in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

On March 4, 1975, the NHTSA proposed a change in the definition of "brake hose assembly" which would exclude from the standard's requirements certain assemblies made for repair of used vehicles (40 F.R. 8962, copy enclosed.) As proposed, the change would not exclude assemblies made by hose distributors. Several of the comments responding to the proposal have suggested that such distributor-made assemblies also be excluded.

When a final decision is made on this issue, it will be published in the Federal Register.

ID: nht75-1.3

DATE: 03/03/75

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

TO: Paul Utans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 3, 1975 N40-30 (TWH)

Mr. Paul Utans 55 Concord Street Englewood, New Jersey 07621

Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your January 19, 1975, questions whether S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, permit a brake fluid warning statement on a filler cap to be partially obscured by a locking component placed over it, and whether the statement may include the name of an automobile manufacturer in association with the recommended type of brake fluid.

The answer to both of your questions is no. Section S5.4.3(b) requires that the statement be "located so as to be visible by direct view". This requirement prohibits an arrangement which would obscure any part of the statement, as would the design described in the drawings which accompany your letter. Section S5.4.3(b) permits a location within 4 inches of the brake fluid reservoir filler plug or cap to accommodate arrangements which do not permit use of the filler cap as a location.

The content of the brake fluid warning statement required by S5.4.3 is specified in every respect other than designation of the recommended type of brake fluid. However, S5.4.3 does limit the permissible designation to "the recommended type of brake fluid as specified in 49 CFR S?571.116" and sets out an example of "DOT 3". These criteria do not permit the addition of an automobile manufacturer's name. Such a recommendation could, of course, appear separately in the vehicle's owner's manual.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel