Interpretation 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