Interpretation ID: aiam1455
Submanager
Technical Divisions
Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.
Ltd.
Kojima-Building
10-2
Nishishinjuku
1-Chome
Shinjuku-Ku
Tokyo
Japan;
Dear Mr. Tsukano:#This is in response to your February 27, 1974 request concerning brake hose identifications codes and labeling, conflicts of Federal and State standards,and procedures for certifying hose, end fittings, and hose assemblies in compliance with Standard No. 106, *Brake hoses*. This also responds to your March 25, 1974, (ref T-76) request for approval of your proposed hydraulic and vacuum brake hose labeling.#Notice 10 was published on February 26, 1974. It modified the labeling requirements,and a copy is enclosed. It is certain that another notice will be published shortly which may modify the marking requirements further. Therefore I advise that you not undertake modifications of your labeling in the near future.#In answer to your February 21 letter, if we require a code at a later date, the code will not relate to the MRA code. Concerning the marking of multi-piece fittings, the designation must appear on each part of a reusable end fitting, although this requirement is presently under reconsideration.#With regard to conflicting State regulations such as Pennsylvania's, our regulation as of September 1, 1974, preempts any State brake hose regulations which are not identical with respect to the same aspects of performance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides at S 103(d):#>>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no state or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard ...<<<#However, it is permissible, if a manufacturer wishes, for him to place Pennsylvania labeling on the reverse side of the hose.#It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that his products comply with Standard No. 106. You may conduct a test program, or you may hire an independent test laboratory to conduct the test program for you. One test laboratory in the United States which tests brake hose is VPI of Blacksburg, Virginia. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not conduct certification tests, but it dies conduct tests on manufacturer products to enforce compliance.#In answer to your March 25 letter, the hydraulic brake hose marking in 'Face A' appears to conform to the requirements of S5.2.2, assuming that letter 'size' refers to letter height. Notice 10 permits the manufacturer designation to be other than block capital letters. 'Face B' is not regulated by our standard.#With regard to the brake hose end fitting and brake hose assembly examples, they appear to conform to S5.2.3 and S5.2.4 if the letter 'size' refers to letter height. It should be noted that Notice 10 excludes labeling of two-piece fitting and certain assemblies and that the next notice may make further modifications.#With regard to vacuum brake hose, your 'Face A' example appears to conform to S5.2.2. if letter 'size' refers to letter height. S5.2.1 is not applicable and therefore the strip is not required. 'Face B' is not regulated by our standard.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel;