[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19523-19524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10405]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95-88, Notice 3]
RIN 2127-AG02


Amendment of Standard No. 121, Brake Hoses by Revision of the 
Whip Resistance Test Conditions

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the denial of a petition for 
reconsideration of the agency's decision to amend the whip test 
requirements of Standard 106, Brake Hoses to allow the use of a 
supplemental support for testing certain brake hose assemblies. The 
petition is denied on the basis that the petitioner provided no new 
information on which to justify amending the standard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590:

For non-legal issues: Sam Daniel, Vehicle Dynamics Division, Office of 
Crash Avoidance Standards, (202-366-4921)
For legal issues: Mr. Marvin L. Shaw, NCC-20, Rulemaking Division, 
Office of Chief Counsel, (202-366-2992).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Interpretation

    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 that an 
alternative whip resistance test apparatus be allowed for testing its 
hydraulic brake hose assemblies. Earl's has manufactured armored brake 
hose assemblies 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 conventional motor vehicles. 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 
armored with braided stainless steel while most current brake hoses are 
made from rubber tubing alone.
    Earl's armored brake hose is installed on a vehicle differently 
than a conventional brake hose. Earl's 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 proposed by Earl's simulates 
the attachment of the supplemental support bracket to a vehicle.
    Earl's recognized that if the supplemental support is not properly 
attached or mounted to the vehicle, it's hoses could 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 
indicated, however, this was not a problem 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 mounting technique.
    On April 24, 1995, NHTSA responded to Earl's request for an 
interpretation, concluding that the rule as then written did not permit 
the use of a supplemental support to mount a brake hose when conducting 
the whip test. NHTSA stated that section 6.3 could not 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.

Agency Rulemaking Amending Whip Resistance Test

    On November 16, 1995, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) in which it proposed amending the whip resistance test of 
Standard No.

[[Page 19524]]

106. (60 FR 57562). Under that proposal, Section 6.3.2 would be amended 
to permit an optional mounting procedure for certain brake hose 
assemblies for the whip resistance test through the use of a 
supplemental support. Without such an amendment, some armored brake 
hose assemblies would remain prohibited because they could not comply 
with the whip resistance test in effect at that time. The proposed 
amendment was intended to allow a brake hose assembly to be mounted in 
the whip test apparatus in the same manner in which 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 mounted in a bracket that would simulate vehicle 
mounting, in accordance with the recommendation of the brake hose 
assembly manufacturer.
    The agency invited comments on the appropriateness of the proposed 
modification to the whip resistance test. NHTSA received comments on 
the proposed amendment from vehicle manufacturers BMW and Chrysler and 
from automotive equipment suppliers Goodridge (UK) Ltd., Goodyear Tire 
& Rubber Co. and Titeflex Industrial Americas.
    BMW and Chrysler supported the revisions to the whip test 
procedure. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company did not express support for 
or against the amendments, but requested clarification regarding a 
number of technical issues. Titeflex Industrial Americas and Goodridge 
(OK) Ltd. objected to the proposed changes to the whip test, stating 
that the changes would allow an unfair advantage to Earl's Performance 
Products and would also reduce the level of safety now achieved with 
the existing whip test.
    On August 9, 1996, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register 
(61 FR 41510) announcing a final rule amending Standard 106, Brake 
Hoses by revising the whip resistance test to permit the use of a 
supplemental support bracket. Along with adopting the proposed 
requirements, the final rule included some additional provisions, 
including package labeling requirements for brake hose assemblies 
designed for use with a supplemental support. The notice further 
required that a brake hose assembly equipped with a permanently 
attached supplemental support be tested on the whip test apparatus in a 
position which simulates proper installation on a vehicle.

Petition for Reconsideration of the Whip Test Amendments

    On September 7, 1996 a petition for reconsideration was received 
from Goodridge (USA) Inc. and Goodridge (UK) Ltd. The Goodridge 
petition questioned the appropriateness of allowing the introduction of 
a ``proprietary specification'' that can be only produced by Earl's, 
and cited several concerns regarding the safety of the new Earl's 
product.
    Goodridge claimed that the amendments published in the final rule 
give Earl's an unfair advantage because of the introduction of a 
proprietary specification that is protected by patents. The agency 
finds this argument unpersuasive. Any company that develops a brake 
hose assembly with an integral supplemental support may test the 
assembly for whip resistance in accordance with the procedures 
specified in Docket No. 95-88, Notice 2. The amendment of Section 6.3.2 
does not specify the design of the supplemental support, as implied by 
Goodridge. Further, the amendment does not restrict other manufacturers 
from using this modified whip test apparatus if their brake hose 
assemblies meet the requirements, that is, include a permanently 
attached supplemental support, and a means of attaching the support to 
a fixture.
    Goodridge claimed that the brake hose assemblies allowed by the 
amendment to the whip test procedures would reduce overall vehicle 
safety since the brake hoses could be improperly installed by 
inexperienced technicians or private citizens. The agency disagrees 
with Goodridge on this issue. The agency believes the required package 
labeling will assure correct installation of brake hose assemblies with 
supplemental supports. Brake technicians and private citizens who opt 
to utilize these products will likely be aware prior to acquisition 
that the assemblies have unique installation requirements. Further, the 
package labeling must detail proper installation instructions as well 
as the consequences of improper installation. Goodridge claimed that 
there is no test data to support the amendments to the standard. The 
tests in SAE J1401, from which the Federal safety requirements were 
adopted, were developed to be non-vehicle specific, cover all road 
vehicles, and represent the exposure that a component would experience 
in the actual use. It has long been the position of the SAE and others 
responsible for product testing that if a brake hose can pass the 
requirements of FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses, or SAE J1401 Road Vehicle-
Hydraulic Brake Hose Assemblies, there is no compromise to safety since 
the testing represents the vehicle mounting and exposure parameters of 
all vehicle types.
    The agency, in the final rule issued on August 9, 1996, made it 
clear that there are design choices and investment decisions associated 
with each product that is developed to meet the requirements of a 
safety standard. Along with those decisions goes the risk of products 
being displaced by new design approaches to solve old problems. It also 
indicated that it must remain open to amending the safety standards 
consistent with its statutory authority based upon changing vehicle 
technology. NHTSA believes that Goodridge has submitted no new 
information to support the claim that the design of Earl's brake hose 
which is properly mounted with a supplemental support is more prone to 
failure than any other manufacturer's brake hose that does not use a 
supplemental support.
    As indicated in the final rule, if 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.
    The agency does not envision a large increase in the replacement 
installation of armored brake hoses by the general public. In many 
applications, vehicle modification would be required to allow for a 
supplemental support bracket.

    Accordingly, the agency has decided to deny the petition.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: April 17, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-10405 Filed 4-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P