[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