[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57562-57565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28357]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-88, Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AG02
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Brake Hoses; Whip
Resistance Test
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As the result of an inquiry from Earl's Performance Products,
this document proposes to amend Standard
[[Page 57563]]
No. 106, Brake Hoses, by revising the whip resistance test. Under the
proposal, it would be permissible, for the purpose of the test, to
mount such brake hose assemblies using a supplemental support. This
proposal would serve to amend a provision that has the unintended
consequence of prohibiting the manufacture and sale for use on the
public roads of a type of brake hose that has significant safety
advantages.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before January 16,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. Richard
Carter, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20590. (202-366-5274).
For legal issues: Mr. Marvin L. Shaw, NCC-20, Rulemaking Division,
Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-
366-2992).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, specifies labeling and performance
requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and
brake hose end fittings. The Standard includes several requirements,
including one for whip resistance. Section S5.3.3, Whip resistance,
specifies that ``A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall not rupture when
run continuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours.'' The purpose of
the whip resistance requirement is to replicate the bending cycles that
a brake hose experiences when mounted on a vehicle's front axle. The
flexing machine simulates the turning of the front wheels combined with
the jounce and rebound of the wheel on rough roads.
Section S6.3 specifies the test conditions for the whip resistance
test, including the testing apparatus, test preparation, and test
operation. The standard specifies that the testing apparatus is
required to be equipped with capped end fittings that permit mounting
at each end point. The present specifications requirements for the whip
test apparatus are patterned after an existing Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE's) Recommended Practice, J1401, Hydraulic Brake Hose
Assemblies for Use with Nonpetroleum Based Hydraulic Fluids (June
1990).
II. Request for Interpretation and NHTSA's Response
On December 8, 1994, Earl's Performance Products (Earl's) contacted
the agency requesting an interpretation of the whip resistance
requirements in Standard No. 106. Specifically, that company asked
about the permissibility of using an alternative whip resistance test
apparatus for testing hydraulic brake hose. Earl's is seeking
permission to use the alternative fixture because it wishes to begin
selling its armored brake hose for use on the public roads and its hose
will not pass the present whip resistance test. The test fixture would
provide a pivoted supplemental hose support for use with Earl's brake
hose, which is armored with braided stainless steel. The alternative
test fixture is based on the manner in which its brake hose is
currently mounted on racing vehicles and in which it would be mounted
on vehicles used on the public roads if the agency adopts the amendment
requested by Earl's. The Standard specifies that the test sample be
``mounted through bearings at each end * * *'' (S6.3.1(a)) Earl's
armored brake hoses are installed differently than conventional hoses,
since Earl's hoses, unlike conventional hoses, are attached to the
vehicle frame.
Earl's has manufactured its armored brake hose for use in off-road,
high performance race cars since the 1960s. It claimed that its product
is of very high quality and easily meets all of the requirements in
Standard No. 106, except the whip resistance test. Its product fails
the whip resistance test due to cyclic stress at the interface between
the hose and the swaged collar at the fixed end of the hose assembly.
Such cyclic stress occurs in the real world also, but does not pose a
problem in that environment because the hose is protected by the
supplemental support.
Earl's further indicated that it had successfully tested hose
assemblies from 9 inches to 24 inches using its new test fixture. In
describing its test fixture, that company stated that
* * * the whip dampener consists of a spherical bearing enclosed
in a machined housing. The housing clips into the OEM bracket where
the OEM hard brake tubing joins to the flexible brake hose. The
flexible brake hose of stainless armored teflon is inserted through
the bearing on assembly and cannot be removed. Suitable threaded
couplings * * * are provided at each end of the assembly to match
the OEM threads at the end of the hard lines and at the caliper of
the wheel cylinder * * *
On April 24, 1995, NHTSA responded to Earl's request for an
interpretation, by stating that
Section S6.3 cannot be interpreted to permit mounting the brake
hose at the ``whip dampener.'' S6.3.1 Apparatus specifies a test
apparatus that mounts the brake hose at ``capped end fittings'' on
one end and ``open end fittings'' on the other, and specifies no
mounting points in between. Thus a test apparatus that mounts the
brake hose at a ``whip dampener,'' which is not an end fitting would
not meet Standard No. 106.
The agency then stated that it would initiate rulemaking to further
consider whether to amend the whip resistance test to permit a
supplemental support.
III. Agency Proposal
After reviewing the issues raised in the letter from Earl's, NHTSA
has decided to propose amending the whip resistance test of Standard
No. 106. Under this proposal, section S6.3.2 would be amended to permit
a pivoted supplemental support, thereby providing an optional way to
mount certain brake hose assemblies during the test. Without such an
amendment, those armored hoses would remain prohibited because they
cannot comply with the current whip resistant test. The proposed
amendment is intended to allow the mounting of Earl's brake hose
assembly in the same way that it is mounted in the real world. The
proposal applies to those brake hose assemblies that are fitted with a
supplemental support which cannot be removed from the hose without
destroying the hose. The supplemental support would be placed so that
it is spaced in accordance with the recommendation of the brake hose
assembly manufacturer. The agency invites comments about the
appropriateness of the proposed modification to the whip resistance
test.
NHTSA believes that the provision it proposes to amend has the
unintended consequence of prohibiting the manufacture and sale for use
on the public roads of a type of brake hose that has significant safety
advantages. Among the safety advantages are the elimination of hose
swell under pressure which results in a significant reduction in brake
pedal travel and a much firmer brake pedal feel. The firmer pedal
allows the driver to modulate braking force more precisely. These
safety advantages are relevant in ``typical road environments.'' The
agency notes that armored brake hoses are designed to withstand
operating conditions, such as those experienced in racing environments,
that are significantly more severe than those experienced in typical
road environments. Brake hoses of this type
[[Page 57564]]
are of higher quality and more expensive than those typically installed
for use on the public roads.
Leadtime
The statute requires that each order shall take effect no sooner
than 180 days from the date the order is issued unless good cause is
shown that an earlier effective date is in the public interest. 49
U.S.C. 30111(d) NHTSA has tentatively concluded that there would be
good cause not to provide the 180 day lead time given that this
amendment would have no adverse effect on manufacturers. The proposal
merely specifies an alternative method of testing certain brake hoses.
Based on the above, the agency has tentatively concluded that there is
good cause for an effective date 30 days after publication of the final
rule. NHTSA requests comments about whether a 30 day effective date is
appropriate or whether more leadtime is necessary.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulatory Planning and Review) and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposal was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. NHTSA has analyzed
this proposal and determined that it is not ``significant'' within the
meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. A full regulatory evaluation is not required because the
rule, if adopted, would have no mandatory effects. Instead, the
proposed rule would permit the use of brake hoses which are designed to
be installed using a supplemental support, such as those manufactured
by the petitioner that are armored with braided stainless steel.
Therefore, this rulemaking would not have any cost impacts.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NHTSA has
evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. Based upon this
evaluation, I certify that the proposed amendment would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Vehicle and brake hose manufacturers typically would not qualify as
small entities. Further, as noted above, the proposal would have
minimal, if any impacts on costs or benefits. Accordingly, no
regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.
3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the proposed rule would not have sufficient Federalism
implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No
State laws would be affected.
4. National Environmental Policy Act
Finally, the agency has considered the environmental implications
of this proposed rule in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 and determined that the proposed rule would not
significantly affect the human environment.
5. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under
section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49
U.S.C. 30111), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard. Section 105 of the Act (49 U.S.C. 30161) sets forth a
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
Public Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, the agency proposes to amend
Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, in Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations at Part 571 as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Sec. 571.121 would be amended by adding S6.3.2(d), which would
read as follows:
Sec. 571.121 Standard No. 106; Brake Hoses.
* * * * *
S6.3.2 * * *
(d) For a brake hose assembly fitted with a supplemental support
which cannot be removed from the hose without destroying the hose, the
brake hose assembly may be mounted using a supplemental support. Mount
the supplemental support in the same vertical and horizontal planes as
the stationary header end of the whip test fixture described in
S6.3.1(b). Place the supplemental support so that it is spaced in
accordance with the recommendation of the brake hose assembly
manufacturer for mounting the hose assembly on a vehicle.
* * * * *
[[Page 57565]]
Issued on: November 13, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-28357 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
