[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 155 (Friday, August 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41510-41514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-20349]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95-88, Notice 02]
RIN 2127-AG02


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Brake Hoses; Whip 
Resistance Test

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: As the result of an inquiry from Earl's Performance Products, 
this document amends Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, by revising the 
whip resistance test conditions. As amended, the test conditions permit 
the use of a supplemental support in attaching certain brake hose 
assemblies for the purpose of compliance testing. This rulemaking 
amends a provision that had the unintended consequence of prohibiting 
the manufacture and sale for use on the public roads of a type of brake 
hose assembly that may have safety advantages.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments become effective on October 8, 
1996.
    Petitions for Reconsideration: Any petitions for reconsideration of 
this rule must be received by NHTSA no later than September 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this rule should refer to 
Docket 93-54; Notice 3 and should be submitted to: Administrator, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For non-legal issues: Mr. Richard Carter, Office of Vehicle Safety 
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. (202-366-5274).
    For legal issues: Mr. Marvin L. Shaw, NCC-20, Rulemaking Division, 
Office of

[[Page 41511]]

Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-2992).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Request for Interpretation and NHTSA's Response
III. Agency Proposal
IV. Comments on the Proposal
V. NHTSA Determination

I. Background

    Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, specifies labeling and performance 
requirements for motor vehicle brake hoses, 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 wheels on rough roads.
    Section S6.3 specifies the test conditions and procedures for the 
whip resistance test, including the testing apparatus, test 
preparation, and test operation. The standard specifies that the 
testing apparatus is equipped with capped end fittings that permit 
mounting at each end point. The present specifications 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) asked the 
agency to issue 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, since its hose will not pass the 
present whip resistance test. Earl's has manufactured its armored brake 
hose assembly for use in off-road, high performance race cars since the 
1960s. That company sought permission to use the alternative fixture 
because it wished to begin selling its armored brake hose for use on 
the public roads. It claimed that its product is of very high quality 
and easily meets all of the requirements in Standard No. 106, except 
for the whip resistance test. Earl's brake hose is a hose armored with 
braided stainless steel. In contrast, most current brake hoses are made 
from rubber tubing alone.
    Earl's armored brake hose is installed differently than a 
conventional hose. An Earl's hose, unlike a conventional hose, passes 
through and is held in place by a supplemental support (consisting of a 
ball bearing with a hole in it and the ball bearing housing) which 
cannot be removed from the hose. The support slides into and is held in 
place by a bracket which is attached to the vehicle frame or some other 
solid vehicle structure.
    The alternative test apparatus includes means of simulating the 
attachment of the supplemental support to a vehicle. The apparatus is 
patterned after the way in which Earl's brake hose is currently mounted 
on racing vehicles and the way in which Earl's anticipates attaching 
the brake hose on vehicles used on the public roads, if the agency 
adopted its requested amendment.
    If the supplemental support is not properly attached or mounted to 
the vehicle, Earl's product would fail 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. Earl's claimed that such cyclic 
stress could occur in the real world, but does not pose a problem in 
that environment when 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 long, using its alternative 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, concluding that the agency could not use a supplemental 
support to mount Earl's brake hose when conducting the whip test. NHTSA 
stated 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 the use of 
a supplemental support.

III. Agency Proposal

    On November 16, 1995, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) in which it proposed amending the whip resistance test of 
Standard No. 106. (60 FR 57562) Under that proposal, section S6.3.2 
would be amended to permit an optional way to mount certain brake hose 
assemblies during the test through the use of a supplemental support. 
Without such an amendment, those armored brake hoses would remain 
prohibited because they cannot comply with the current whip resistance 
test. The proposed amendment was intended to allow the attaching of 
Earl's brake hose assembly in the test apparatus in the same way that 
it would be mounted in the real world on a vehicle. The agency stated 
that the proposal would apply to those brake hose assemblies that are 
fitted with a supplemental support that cannot be removed intact from 
the hose without destroying the hose. The supplemental support would be 
positioned and attached or mounted in a bracket that would simulate the 
way the support would be attached or mounted to a vehicle, in 
accordance with the recommendation of the brake hose assembly 
manufacturer. The agency invited comments about the appropriateness of 
the proposed modification to the whip resistance test.
    NHTSA stated its tentative conclusion that Earl's brake hose has 
significant safety advantages. Among those 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. A 
firmer pedal is desirable because it allows the driver to modulate 
braking force more precisely. The agency stated that armored brake 
hoses are designed to withstand operating conditions, such as those 
experienced in racing environments, that are more severe than those 
experienced in typical road environments. Brake hoses of this type are 
typically high quality and more expensive than those normally installed 
for use on the public roads.

IV. Comments on the Proposal

    NHTSA received comments on the proposed amendment to the whip

[[Page 41512]]

resistance test from vehicle manufacturers (BMW and Chrysler) and brake 
hose manufacturers (Earl's, Titeflex, Continental Hose Company, and 
Stuart Goodridge (UK) Ltd).
    BMW, Chrysler, and Earl's supported the proposed amendment to 
Standard No. 106. These commenters stated that the proposed amendment 
duplicates the manner in which these armored hoses are currently 
installed in many racing vehicles.
    The brake hose manufacturers, other than Earl's, commented that the 
proposed amendment does not replicate the way in which a brake hose is 
supported in the real world. Both Titeflex and Goodridge complained 
that Earl's was attempting to circumvent the whip resistance 
requirements. These manufacturers stated that they had invested 
significant capital to develop stainless steel hoses that comply with 
the whip resistance test. Continental Hose, Goodridge, and Titeflex 
were also concerned about the safety of the supplemental support. 
Titeflex alleged that Earl's armored hose is unsafe, particularly in 
terms of its long term performance capability.

V. NHTSA Decision

    After reviewing the comments and other available information, NHTSA 
has decided to amend the whip resistance test conditions in Standard 
No. 106 so that in setting up the test for a brake hose assembly 
designed to be installed with the use of a supplemental support, the 
method of installing those brake hose assemblies in the real world is 
replicated. Specifically, section S6.3.2 is amended to permit the use 
of a supplemental support and attachment bracket as an optional way of 
attaching those brake hose assemblies during the whip resistance test. 
The agency has concluded that it is appropriate and in the interests of 
safety to modify the provision that has prohibited certain armored 
brake hose assemblies until now. The agency emphasizes that the 
alternative test condition is applicable only to those brake hose 
assemblies that are fitted with a supplemental support that cannot be 
removed intact from the hose without destroying the hose and which are 
designed to be installed in vehicles with the supplemental support 
firmly attached to the vehicle structure. In the case of this type of 
brake hose manufactured for use on vehicles other than those originally 
designed for and equipped with such brake hose, there must be an add-on 
bracket that is used to modify those vehicles to accept this type of 
hose, that is an integral part of the hose assembly and that cannot be 
removed from the hose without destroying it.
    Continental Hose and Goodridge asked the agency to clarify how a 
brake hose assembly with a permanent supplemental support would be 
mounted. Continental Hose was uncertain whether the supplemental 
support is to be put on the header end or both the header and caliper 
ends of the whip test apparatus.
    NHTSA notes that the new whip resistance test conditions, as 
amended by today's notice, are generally the same as the ones 
previously set forth in the standard. Both ends of the brake hose will 
continue to be threaded into each end of the whip test machine header. 
The only difference is that today's amendment allows the addition of a 
supplemental support that extends out from the stationary header end of 
the whip test machine. This modification is consistent with the 
petitioner's request that the agency permit a supplemental support that 
is mounted on the fixed, non-rotating side of the whip test machine.
    In response to Continental Hose's question, the agency notes that 
only the end of the brake hose assembly by the stationary header is 
fitted with a supplemental support. The end attached to the caliper is 
not equipped with such a supplemental support.
    In the NPRM, NHTSA stated that the amendment would allow a brake 
hose assembly such as one like Earl's to be mounted during compliance 
testing in the same way that it is fitted to the vehicle in the real 
world. Several commenters were concerned that this amendment would not 
replicate real world conditions for brake hose assemblies installed on 
some vehicles in the aftermarket. Goodridge indicated that additional 
amendments were needed to ensure that, with respect to the supplemental 
support, the Standard would replicate the manner in which Earl's brake 
hoses are mounted in vehicles sold to the public. Goodridge stated that 
the requested modification does not always replicate how the brake hose 
is supported in the real world.
    In response to these comments, Earl's stated that in most cases, 
the supplemental support is an integral part of the vehicle as it is 
newly manufactured. It further stated that the supplemental support to 
be used in testing correctly simulates the ``real world'' movement of 
the brake assembly during turning and suspension movement.
    NHTSA has decided to amend Standard No. 106 by adding a provision 
in section S5.1 and S5.2.3 to ensure that the supplemental support and 
method of attachment to the vehicle that is used in the whip resistance 
test is the same as that which will be installed in vehicles in the 
real world. Accordingly, the test condition will replicate how the 
brake hose is installed in vehicles in the real world.
    However, the agency believes that it is necessary to distinguish 
between brake hose manufactured for a vehicle that is equipped with a 
supplemental support as original equipment, and brake hose manufactured 
for a vehicle that needs to be modified by the addition of an 
aftermarket add-on mounting bracket in order to provide a means of 
attaching the supplemental support on the Earl's brake hose assembly to 
the vehicle. Brake hose such as Earl's brake hose would presumably fail 
the whip resistance test unless its supplemental support were properly 
attached.
    In the case of a brake hose assembly designed with an unremovable 
supplemental support and manufactured as a replacement assembly for a 
vehicle equipped, as an integral part of its original design, with a 
means of attaching the support to the vehicle, that assembly is 
required to be sold in a package that is clearly marked or labeled as 
follows: ``FOR USE ON [insert Manufacturer, Model Name] ONLY.'' This 
requirement serves to inform an aftermarket purchaser that the brake 
hose assembly should only be used on a specific vehicle and does not 
have a universal application.
    In the case of a brake hose assembly designed with an unremovable 
supplemental support and manufactured as a replacement assembly for a 
vehicle not equipped, as an integral part of its original design, with 
a means of attaching the support to the vehicle, NHTSA has decided to 
require that those brake hose assemblies be equipped with an add-on 
mounting bracket that is integrally attached to the supplemental 
support, along with instructions explaining how the mounting bracket is 
to be fastened to the vehicle and the consequences of not attaching the 
bracket to the vehicle. If the bracket were not used to attach the 
supplemental support to the vehicle, the brake hose assembly on such 
vehicles would not be capable of withstanding real world conditions. 
The agency believes that these additional requirements adequately 
respond to commenters' concerns that the petitioner's brake hose 
assembly was potentially unsafe and that the proposed test procedure 
was not representative of how such brake hose assemblies are supported 
in the real world.
    Continental was concerned that the supplemental support would be 
prone

[[Page 41513]]

to failure, which might cause partial brake system failure. It stated 
that failure of the supplemental support would subject the interface 
between the brake hose and the swaged collar to the cyclic stress that 
causes failure.
    NHTSA believes that there is no information to support Continental 
Hose's speculation that the supplemental support which Earl's expects 
to use is prone to failure. If such failures were to occur, the agency 
would treat them the same way it treats any other safety-related 
failure of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. The 
agency would expect the manufacturer to conduct a recall if one were 
appropriate.
    Titeflex stated that Earl's brake hose assembly is an inferior 
design that poses a safety hazard in terms of its long term performance 
capability. Titeflex also stated that it developed and produced a 
stainless steel brake hose that complies with the standards under the 
current test conditions for the whip resistance test. This led Titeflex 
to state:

    We wish to contrast our philosophy of full compliance and safety 
assurance through proprietary technology to a weak attempt to meet 
the letter of the law merely to sell one's own product. A rhetorical 
question, therefore is appropriate: Why would and should Titeflex 
have invested the tremendous amount of time, money, and resources in 
developing patented technology that exceeds Standard No. 106 when 
NHTSA is considering relaxing those safety standards.

    NHTSA recognizes that there are design choices and investments 
associated with the provisions of Standard No. 106, just as there are 
with the provisions of each of the agency's standards. The agency 
recognizes also the impact that amending its standards has on those 
choices and investments. However, the agency must remain open to 
amending its standards in response to changing safety needs and 
changing vehicle technology. NHTSA notes that the agency may, with 
proper justification, amend a standard provided that the change is 
consistent with the agency's statutory authority. Foremost among its 
statutory concerns is not making any amendments that would compromise 
safety. Titeflex is concerned that Earl's will be selling an inferior 
product compared to products, such as its own, that comply with 
Standard No. 106 under the present test conditions. NHTSA has decided 
that allowing certain brake hose assemblies to be tested in accordance 
with the new test conditions will not compromise the level of safety 
performance compared with the current test conditions. Specifically, 
NHTSA is not aware of any information (and Titeflex did not provide any 
such information) supporting Titeflex's claim that Earl's brake hose is 
an inferior design that has inferior long term performance capability. 
The agency believes that with a supplemental support properly attached 
and mounted to the vehicle, the brake hose will perform in a manner 
that is equivalent to brake hoses that are manufactured with end 
fittings that do not require a supplemental support to comply with the 
present whip test requirements. Therefore, the agency concludes that 
there will be no decrease in safety.

Leadtime

    As the NPRM explained, the statute requires that each order shall 
take effect no sooner than 180 days from the date on which 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 concluded that 
there is good cause not to provide the 180 day lead time, given that 
this amendment imposes no mandatory requirements on any manufacturer. 
The amendment merely specifies an alternative method of testing certain 
brake hoses. Based on the above, the agency has concluded that there is 
good cause for an effective date 60 days after publication of the final 
rule. The agency is providing a 60 day leadtime rather than the 30 day 
leadtime proposed in the NPRM, given recent legislation that requires a 
60 day leadtime before final rules can take effect. (5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1))

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

1. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulatory Planning and Review) and 
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. NHTSA has 
analyzed this rulemaking notice and determined that it is not 
``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The impacts of 
this rule are so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full 
regulatory evaluation. The rule does not mandate the installation of 
the new type of brake hose assembly. Instead, the rule permits the use 
of brake hoses that are designed to be installed using a supplemental 
support, such as the manufactured by the petitioner, i.e., brake hoses 
armored with braided stainless steel. This rulemaking has no cost 
impacts other than negligible package labeling costs.

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 amendment does not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Vehicle and 
brake hose manufacturers typically do not qualify as small entities. 
Further, as noted above, the amendment has 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 rulemaking does not have sufficient Federalism implications to 
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No State laws are 
affected.

4. National Environmental Policy Act

    Finally, the agency has considered the environmental implications 
of this rulemaking in accordance with the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 and determined that the rulemaking does not significantly 
affect the human environment.

5. Civil Justice Reform

    This rulemaking does 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.

6. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule includes new ``collections of information'' as that term 
is defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). For Standard 
No. 106, OMB has previously approved a collection of information (OMB 
Control Number 2127-0052 ``Brake Hose Manufacturing Identification--
Standard No. 106'') for use through August 31, 1998. When NHTSA 
prepares a future request for an extension of this collection of 
information approval for an additional three years, the agency will 
include in the request, an estimate of the new collection of 
information burden that

[[Page 41514]]

results from today's rule. NHTSA would issue a Federal Register 
document asking for public comment on the request for extension of OMB 
Control Number 2127-0052.
    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB's 
regulations at 5 CFR 1320.5(b)(2), NHTSA informs the potential persons 
who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons 
are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The currently valid OMB 
control number is displayed above and in NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 
part 509 OMB Control Numbers for Information Collection Requirements.

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 has decided 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 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.106 is amended by revising S5.1, adding S5.2.3, 
revising S6.3.2(a) and adding S6.3.2(d) to read as follows:


Sec. 571.106  Standard No. 106; Brake Hoses.

* * * * *
    S5.1 Construction. (a) Each hydraulic brake hose assembly shall 
have permanently attached brake hose end fittings which are attached by 
deformation of the fitting about the hose by crimping or swaging.
    (b) Each hydraulic brake hose assembly that is equipped with a 
permanent supplemental support integrally attached to the assembly and 
is manufactured as a replacement for use on a vehicle not equipped, as 
an integral part of the vehicle's original design, with a means of 
attaching the support to the vehicle shall be equipped with a bracket 
that is integrally attached to the supplemental support and that adapts 
the vehicle to properly accept this type of brake hose assembly.
* * * * *
    S5.2.3 Package labeling for brake hose assemblies designed to be 
used with a supplemental support (a) Each hydraulic brake hose assembly 
that is equipped with a permanent supplemental support integrally 
attached to the assembly and is manufactured as a replacement assembly 
for a vehicle equipped, as an integral part of the vehicle's original 
design, with a means of attaching the support to the vehicle shall be 
sold in a package that is marked or labeled as follows: ``FOR USE ON 
[insert Manufacturer, Model Name] ONLY'';
    (b) Each hydraulic brake hose assembly that is equipped with a 
permanent supplemental support integrally attached to the assembly and 
is manufactured as a replacement for use on a vehicle not equipped, as 
an integral part of the vehicle's original design, with a means of 
attaching the support to the vehicle shall comply with paragraphs (a) 
(1) and (2) of this section:
    (1) Be sold in a package that is marked or labeled as follows: 
``FOR USE ONLY WITH A SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORT.''
    (2) Be accompanied by clear, detailed instructions explaining the 
proper installation of the brake hose and the supplemental support 
bracket to the vehicle and the consequences of not attaching the 
supplemental support bracket to the vehicle. The instructions shall be 
printed on or included in the package specified in paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    S6.3.2 Preparation. (a) Except for the supplemental support 
specified in S6.3.2(d), remove all external appendages including, but 
not limited to, hose armor, chafing collars, mounting brackets, date 
band and spring guards.
* * * * *
    (d) In the case of a brake hose assembly equipped with a permanent 
supplemental support integrally attached to the assembly, the assembly 
may be mounted using the supplemental support and associated means of 
simulating its attachment to the vehicle. 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). Mount or 
attach the supplemental support so that it is positioned in accordance 
with the recommendation of the assembly manufacturer for attaching the 
supplemental support on a vehicle.
* * * * *
    Issued on: August 5, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-20349 Filed 8-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P