ID: nht88-4.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: GARRY GALLAGHER -- VICE PRESIDENT METZELER MOTORCYCLE TIRE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/22/88 FROM GARRY GALLAGHER TO LARRY COOK -- NHTSA, OCC 2372

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gallagher:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.119). More specifically, you asked whether the letter "B" must appear as part of the size designati on of a motorcycle tire if that tire is of bias belted construction. The answer to your question is no.

As you noted in your letter, section @ 6.5 of Standard No. 119 sets forth the marking requirements for tires used on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, including tires for use on motorcycles. Subsection S6.5(c) states that each such tire shall be marked with "The tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." Section S5.1, in turn, specifies tire and rim matching information that must be provided to the public. Generally speaking, the size designation of a tire shows only the physical dimensions of that tire, not necessarily its construction. Thus, the common meaning of the term "size designation" does not necessarily include an indication of the tire's construction type. Further, no provision of Standa rd No. 119 requires a tire's size designation to indicate the tire's construction type. The only reference in section S6.5 of Standard's No. 119 to a tire's construction type is in subsection S6.5(i), which requires the word "radial" to appear on the ti re's sidewall if the tire is of radial construction. Therefore, in response to your question, Standard No. 119 does not require the letter "B" to be included in the size designation of bias belted motorcycle tires.

You noted that your company sometimes adds the letter "B" to the size designation of these tires as an internal code. NHTSA has long said that manufacturers are free to include additional information on the sidewall of their tires, provided that the add itional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat the purpose of the required information. In this case, the addition of the letter "B" to the size designation would not appear to confuse or obs cure the meaning of the size designation. Hence, there would be no

apparent violation of Standard No. 119 by including the letter "B" in the size designation of bias belted motorcycle tires.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/88

FROM: THOMAS E. GUNTON -- CORPORATE COUNSEL MCCULLAGH LEASING, INC.

TO: JUDITH KALETA -- OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: ODOMETER DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/20/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO THOMAS E. GUNTON, REDBOOK A33, PART 580

TEXT: Dear Ms. Kaleta:

This is to request your guidance with respect to whether the odometer disclosure requirements of the Truth and Mileage Act of 1986, 15 USC Section 1981 et seq and the regulations promulgated thereunder, apply to large scale sales of motor vehicles and be tween leasing companies.

In particular, where a motor vehicle leasing company, in a single transaction, sells several hundred of its vehicles (and the related commercial leases) to another leasing company while such vehicles are on lease to numerous lessees whose drivers are loc ated throughout the country, must the transferring leasing company provide odometer mileage disclosures for each of the vehicles transferred, or does the Act exempt such transactions?

If you have any questions or need further information in order to respond, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your assistance.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-4.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/88

FROM: CONRAD S. BROOKS -- ENGINEERING MANAGER FISHER ENGINEERING

TO: ERICKA Z. JONES CHIEF COUNCIL -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/20/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO CONRAD S. BROOKS, REDBOOK A33(8); STANDARD 205, STANDARD 120, PART 571.3

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I have heard differing opinions pertaining to federal regulation of four wheel drive vehicles with snowplows since becoming engineering manager at Fisher Engineering. Will you please furnish a written ruling on the following topics regarding snowplow ap plications:

Mr. Michael Kastner, the National Truck Equipment Association Government Affairs Coordinator, verbally confirmed the following statement yesterday as a result of phone conversation(s) with NHTSA. Please confirm in writing that the substructure for a sno wplow mounting that is permanently attached to a four wheel drive may be attached to and be forward of the front bumper without violating existing or proposed vehicle safety standards.

Is the snowplow blade, being detachable and used only a few hours each year, considered as part of the vehicle payload when it is attached? Does this exempt a vehicle, with the blade attached and raised, from having to meet the Front Gross Axle Weight R ating restrictions?

Is there a specific limitation of what percent of the vehicle curb weight that can be supported by the front axle? The Ford Truck and Body Builder Layout book specifies sixty-three percent maximum. If the portion of the curb weight on the front axle is only dictated by vehicle performance, can you suggest a source for some general guidelines to avoid performance testing?

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/88

FROM: RICHARD L. STORY

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER 04/03/89, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO RICHARD L. STORY, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 218

TEXT: Gentleman

I would like to obtain some information form the NHTSA.

I purchased a 1988 Ford Thunderbird, in the rear seats the car has brackets for shoulder harness.

I contacted the dealer which I purchased the car from and asked to have the shoulder harness installed I was advised that their was a cost of $ 350.000 to do this.

I once saw a TV program on seat belth and traffic safety which stated this was to be installed in a auto by the car company at no charge to the auto owner.

I would like to know if their is a law that does state the car company must do this, if so could you please advise me on this and who I would contact in Ford Motor Company to have the shoulder harness installed. Thank you.

sincerely

ID: nht88-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/07/88

FROM: ROBERT J. LATUS -- POSTMASTER US POST OFFICE PAW PAW, MICHIGAN

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: PRIMARY BRAKE LIGHT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/02/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO ROBERT J. LATUS, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 108

TEXT: One of my Rural Carriers recently purchased a new 1989 Oldsmobile Ciera. She purchases a new car about every 4 years and prefers a new car over taking chances with a used one.

When she arrived at work with the new car, naturally she was proud and invited her co-workers and supervisor outside to look at it. The supervisor took the opportunity to check the lights turn signal etc. In checking it was discovered that when the 4-w ay hazard lights are activated, the only brake light is the much smaller light in the center of the trunk lid. The customary solid signal of the corner lights continue to flash instead of giving the STOP that they had in former models. When questioned, the dealer called Detroit, himself wondering why the change? and was told that this was the new federal regulation. He was also informed that any alteration of what came off of the assembly line was in violation of this new regulation.

I have visited many car lots and found that the "Big 3" auto makers have the same problem on their larger models. The small cars and foreign cars do not.

My question is, who changed the regulation and why? My safety and yours are at stake. Many delivery vehicles use these lights in fog, snow or rain, and their STOP is now hidden under mud, snow or a broken wire.

I have found it to be the opinion of the dealers that I have talked to that the reasoning must have been economics. Perhaps a savings of 60~ per car is more important than the safety of the delivery person or the person that is likely to run into them.

Outside warning devise on the top of these cars have proven to be less effective because of the elements. Lights that are permanently installed - and not on a extension cord as the center light brake light is in some models are much more dependable.

The center light, be it on the inside where melting snow will obscure it completely when the heating coil is activated or the outside light on the extreme rear of the trunk lid under a trim vane where it will accumulate a "back wash" of mud or snow are n ot adequate.

I have been in contact with Mr. Burl Ghastin, Michigan State Police Trafic Safety Division; Les Sokolowski, The National Safety Council, Chicago; and Postal Inspector Jerry Rosenthal in Detroit and they all feel that an explanation from your agency shoul d be sought.

In the interest of Safety, I am

ID: nht88-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WAYNE IVIE -- MANAGER, VEHICLE SUPPORT SERVICE SECTION, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED JULY 12, 1988 FROM WAYNE IVIE, MGR., VEHICLE SUPPORT SERVICE SECTION, OREGON DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION TO NHTSA; OCC2420

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking information about the labeling requirements in Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR @ 571.218). You noted that Oregon recently enacted a mandatory helmet use law which adopted Standard No. 218 as the minimum standard for helmets. You correctly noted that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires subject motorcycle helmets to be permanently and legibly labeled with specified information, including the symbol "DOT" as a certification that the helmet complie s with Standard No. 218. However, you stated that you have received reports that the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is not present on many helmets, either because it has fallen off or been removed by someone. You said that there is often no othe r identification of the manufacturer or brand name on the helmet. Accordingly, it is not possible for the owner of a helmet without the Standard 218 label present to contact a dealer or manufacturer for information about the helmet. You then asked seve ral questions about the labeling requirements set forth in Standard No. 218.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information on Standard No. 218. Prior to October 3, 1988, Standard No. 218 applied only to helmets that could be placed on the size C headform. The helmet manufac turers estimated that approximately 90 percent of all motorcycle helmets were subject to Standard No. 218, because they could be placed on the size C headform. However, helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C h eadform (these were typically smaller sizes of helmets) were not subject to Standard No. 218. Hence, manufacturers of helmets that could not be placed on the size C headform were not required by Standard No. 218 or any of our other regulations to label any information on these helmets. In fact, manufacturers could not label the DOT certification symbol on those helmets that were not subject to Standard No. 218. See the enclosed December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Hoppe for more information on this subject.

We published a final rule on April 6, 1988 that extended the requirements of Standard No. 218 to all motorcycle helmet sizes (53 FR 11280). This rule became effective on October 3, 1988. Accordingly, all motorcycle No. 218 and must be labeled in accord ance with the requirements of S5.6 of that standard.

With this background, your question can be answered as follows. For the approximately 10 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform, Standard No. 218 did not apply to them, so there was no requ irement for any information to be labeled on these helmets. Any such helmets would not display a "DOT sticker" because they were not required or permitted to display such a sticker when they were new, not because the sticker "fell off" or was removed.

However, Standard No. 218 applied to approximately 90 percent of all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 and applies to every motorcycle helmet manufactured on or after that date. For those helmets, S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that: "Eac h helmet shall be permanently and legibly labeled . . ." with the manufacturers name or identification, the precise model designation, the size, the month and year of manufacture, the DOT certification mark, and warning instructions. (emphasis added) In an October 16, 1973 letter to the Cycraft Co., NHTSA stated that the requirement that helmets be permanently labeled prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals.

You stated that you have heard of two reasons why helmets that originally had a DOT certification label would no longer have such a label. One of the reasons was that the affixed label was a "sticker" and it "fell off." Standard No. 218 permits manufact urers to label the required information on the helmet by means of a "sticker," provided that the label is permanent and legible and contains all the information required by S5.6. A "sticker" that falls off the helmet would not appear to be permanent wit hin the meaning of Standard No. 218, so this would be an apparent noncompliance with the standard. If you have any evidence that "stickers" are falling off helmets, please forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this addre ss, and we will take appropriate actions.

The second reason that you have heard for helmets no longer having the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is that someone removed the label to paint the helmet and failed to put the label back on the helmet. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traff ic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "knowingly render[ing] inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehic le equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with Standard No. 218. If a manufacturer, distribu tor, dealer, or repair

business removed that label and failed to put it back on the helmet, then those entities would be rendering the label inoperative, in violation of Federal law. Again, if you have any evidence that violations of Federal law have occurred in your State, pl ease forward that evidence to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance and we will take appropriate actions.

Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmet's owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitte d to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing th e label.

You suggested that the problem of missing labels could be solved if this agency were to require that the DOT symbol be embossed on or in the helmet. NHTSA considered and rejected this suggestion 15 years ago when it established Standard No. 218. In the August 20, 1973 preamble to the final rule that established FMVSS 218, we said:

With respect to providing important safety information in the form of labeling, one comment recommended that, due to possible label deterioration, both the manufacturer's identification and the helmet model designation should be permanently marked by etching, branding, stamping, embossing, or molding on the exterior of the helmet shell or on a permanently attached component so as to be visible when the helmet is in use. The NHTSA has determined that the practical effect of this recommendation is acc omplished by requiring each helmet to be permanently and legibly labeled. The method to be used to permanently and legibly affix a label for each helmet is therefore left to the discretion of the manufacturer. (38 FR 22391)

You finally asked if other jurisdictions have informed NHTSA of similar problems and sought suggestions on methods to resolve the situation where an apparently undamaged helmet would be in compliance with the standard except that it is not properly label ed. As noted above, approximately 10 percent of the motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were not subject to Standard No. 218 and were not required to be labeled. To my knowledge, no other jurisdictions have informed this agency of pr oblems akin to those raised in your letter aside from more general questions about labeling.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-4.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: A.J. ACKLEY -- MARTEK CORP.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/26/88 FROM A. J. ACKLEY TO JOAN TILLGHMAN, OCC - 2096; LETTER DATED 06/10/88 FROM A J ACKLEY TO ERIKA Z JONES; OCC 2151

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ackley:

This is in response to your letter of May 26, 1988, in which you asked whether this agency anticipated any legal problems with the design of your proposed safety triangle. You noted in your letter and in an accompanying diagram that the design of your p roduct might differ from the typical design of a warning triangle because you intended to include a company's logo (the letter "T" in a star) within the safety triangle. I apologize for the delay in our response.

Your proposed product would be subject to Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @571.125, Copy enclosed). This standard establishes requirements for devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traff ic of the presence of a stopped vehicle. Paragraph S5.2.6 states that

The device shall consist entirely of the triangular portion and attachments necessary for its support and enclosure, without additional visible shapes or attachments. (emphasis added)

The standard's express prohibition against "additional visible shapes or attachments" indicates that your proposal to include a logo in the center of the warning device would violate the safety standard. As a result, you could not legally market this pr oduct. The Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-4.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 1988

FROM: CLARENCE M. DITLOW III -- CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 12, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO DITLOW

TEXT: Your November 1 letter refusing to question General Motors' failure to provide retrofit rear shoulder belts for 9 million cars reflects such callous disregard for human life and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers.

First, you totally ignore the fact that GM is actively discouraging consumers from installing shoulder belts in 9 million cars by telling them the shoulder belt offers no added safety protection over the lap belt alone. What possible scientific basis is there for such a statement, particularly when GM's chief seatbelt effectiveness expert, Leonard Evans, concludes that shoulder/lap belts are more than twice as effective as lap belts alone in preventing fatalities. If rear lap belts are as effective as shoulder/lap belts, then why is NHTSA proposing to require shoulder belts in rear seats?

Second, you condone GM's actions to discourage installation of rear shoulder belts by trivalizing 9 million cars as "a few of its past models." I assure you that the millions of people who ride with their lives at greater risk in the rear seats of these cars deserve far more respect than you show them.

Third, NHTSA's voluntary program to make retrofit shoulder belts available is in shambles. Not a day goes by without CAS receiving complaints from consumers about dealers refusing to install shoulder belts in rear seats. GM encourages this withholding of lifesaving shoulder belts by alleging there is research that adding shoulder belts doesn't save lives. Telling people that shoulder belts do not save lives clearly frustrates NHTSA's policy of encouraging retrofits.

Fourth, the only substantive statement in your response was that NHTSA does not have the statutory authority to mandate the availability of retrofit shoulder belts. This is nothing more than a strawman argument as my September 9 letter never said NHTSA has the statutory authority to mandate retrofit kits. But in view of the greater effectiveness of shoulder belts and the increased use of rear lap belts which cause death in some accidents, the question arises as to why NHTSA doesn't ask Congress for su ch authority?

Your substantive response to the questions raised in these letters is welcomed.

ID: nht88-4.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ERMAN JACKSON -- SALES MANAGER-TRAILMASTER TANKS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: APRIL 18, 1988 FROM JACKSON TO JONES

TEXT: This is in response to your letter which requested our interpretation of the applicability of certification requirements to your company. You indicate that you attached a new body to a truck chassis that has been in service for a number of years. Your customer believes that Trailmaster Tanks, Inc., (Trailmaster) should have issued a new final-stage manufacturer certificate at the time of the mounting of the new body. Trailmaster, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the final-stage manufacturer certificate is only issued when the chassis is new. You asked me whether your company was required by Federal law or regulations to certify that the new body on the used truck chassis complies with all applicable safety standards. The answer to your qu estion depends on whether the used chassis consisted of any new components and, if not, whether the used components of the chassis came from different vehicles, as explained below.

As a general matter, our safety standards and certification requirements apply to vehicles only before the first sale of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Generally speaking, vehicles that are produced from a chassis that has alr eady been sold to the public are notconsidered new vehicles, and are not subject to our safety standards or certification requirements. However, there is a special provision in our regulations for vehicles that are produced by combining new and used comp onents. This provision is in 49 CFR @ 571.7 (e), which provides:

(e)Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of the requirements of this chapter, and the Act, unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components are from the same vehicle.

This regulation means that a party attaching a new body to an old chassis is not required to attach a new certification label or make any certification under Federal law if that party simply uses the engine, transmission, and drive axle that are installe d on the old chassis at the time the party receives the old chassis. Based on your statement that the truck "was not modified in any way" at the time the new body was installed on the old chassis, this would appear to be the case in your situation. If this is true, you were not required to make any certification in connection with this vehicle.

On the other hand, if you substituted a new engine, transmission, or drive axle in the old chassis when you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured under @571.7(e) and your company was required to certify the vehicle in accor dance with Part 567. Similarly, if you substituted used components on the old chassis at the time you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured unless at least two of the three specified components (engine, transmission, and d rive axle) were from the same vehicle.

It should be noted that, even if the vehicle created when you attached a new body to a used truck chassis did not result in a newly manufactured vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR @ 571.7(e), your company was still subject to the provisions of section 108(a)(2)( A) of the Safety Act. This section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with safety standards. In other words, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business can modify used vehicles by removing or defeating any of the systems or devices that were installed on the vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. The modifier in the f irst instance must determine if the modifications constitute a prohibited "rendering inoperative" violation. However, the agency can reexamine the modifier's determination in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I believe you can use the information presented in this letter to determine whether or not the vehicle your company made was considered a newly manufactured vehicle, subject to our safety standards and certification regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht88-4.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NUMBER 106, BRAKE HOSES-REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION; DATED 6-7-88, OCC-2154, FROM WILLIAM SHAPIRO

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the testing of hydraulic brake hose assemblies to the whip resistance requirement (S5.3.3) of Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. I regret the delay in responding.

Your question relates to Table II of Standard No. 106, which specifies the amount of slack that should be introduced when mounting brake hose assemblies on the whip test apparatus. (The amount of the hose indicated as "slack" in Table II is the differen ce between the projected length of the hose assembly (when mounted in the whip test machine) and the free length of the hose while maintained in a straight position.) Slack must be present in the hose when mounted on the whip test machine to enable the p roper "whipping" movement of a brake hose assembly. Without slack, an assembly would probably be incapable of withstanding any rotation of the movable header of the whip test apparatus described in Standard No. 106 without rupturing.

Table II specifies the amount of slack for some sizes of assemblies, and not for others. You ask whether a hydraulic brake hose assembly of a size falling in the latter category -- viz., an assembly comprised of a brake hose that is 19 to 24 inches in f ree length, and which is more than one-eighth inch or three millimeters (mm.) in diameter -- "need not be tested to meet or exceed the whip resistance requirement" of the standard.

With regard to NHTSA's Standard No. 106 compliance testing, your understanding is correct that Table II does not specify the amount of slack for testing assemblies of the size you describe. Due to the absence of the slack specification, NHTSA does not r equire testing of such assemblies to the whip resistance requirements of the standard.

With regard to your certification that the brake hose assemblies you manufacture comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 106, you are correct that hydraulic brake hose assemblies of the size you describe are not subject to the whip resist ance requirements. However,

the agency urges manufacturers to ensure that these assemblies perform in a safe manner while subject to environmental conditions of vehicle operations which may result in flexing of the brake hose or brake hose assembly.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.