[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