[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