ID: nht75-1.24

DATE: 03/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Stratoflex, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to confirm the interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, which I gave in a telephone conversation on February 27, 1975.

S5.2.4 of the standard requires each brake hose assembly to be labeled with a band. The band must include, among other information, "a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly. . . ." A brake hose distributor who manufactures assemblies at multiple locations is not required to assign a designation to each location; a single designation will suffice.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Department of Transportation -- Office of Chief Counsel

Subject: February 6, 1975 Inquiry on Paragraph S5.2.4 of FMVSS 106 (Tagging Requirement)

Attn: Mark Schwimmer

Dear Mr. Schwimmer;

An inquiry was made on February 6, 1975 at the Office of Chief Counsel to Mr. Mark Schwimmer regarding the FMVSS 106 labeling requirements per paragraph S5.2.4. This inquiry asked if an assembler with multiple locations was required to assign multiple designations. Mr. Schwimmer stated he could not answer the question as it was currently in process of discussion, however, within a few days time he would advise.

(Illegible Word) immediately enacted a "hold" on all phases of preparation (Illegible Word) compliance to "tagging" per S5.2.4 expecting clarification (Illegible Word) (Illegible Word) few days. The answer to this inquiry is essential in (Illegible Word) (Illegible Word) requirements for this national program.

On February 12, 1975 a meeting was conducted at the Office of Chief Counsel. In attendance were; Mark Schwimmer, D.O.T., Paul Hykes, ATA., Larry Strawhorn, ATA., C.P. Boling, Stratoflex. Discussed were all aspects of "Tagging" requirements including a request to exclude fleets from the tagging requirements at which time Office of Chief Counsel was unable to answer previous inquiry or comment on status except to say, "They will be able to advise in a few days." These 'few days' have now become weeks with no indication of a firm date established to answer our request.

This delay has now made it impossible for Stratoflex to complete a responsible national program that will effectively allow customers, which utilize bulk components, to comply by the current effective date of March 1, 1975.

We request that the effective date of March 1, 1975 be extended to allow time to reconsider our docket submittal of February 18, 1975 which extensively outlines the economic impact on fleet operators. ATA has determined that the total number of potential assembler's exceeds 4 million as presently defined. This figure alone raises the question of the tagging requirement being unrealistic to impose to administrate in addition to being of little or no value in (Illegible Word) the integrity of the end product.

Although we totally disagree with this imposed "tagging" requirement at the fleet level, Stratoflex has made and will continue to make an honest effort to fully comply with all aspects of FMVSS (Illegible Word) and reestablish a national program to support our customers.

C. P. Boling

SANTA ANA

February 18, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Attention: Mark Schwimmer -- Office of the Chief Counsel

Ref: FMVSS 106 Paragraph S5.2.4

Gentlemen:

We respectfully suggest that the implementation of the referenced tagging requirement, particularly at repair and maintenance levels, will result in an extreme inflationary impact on the trucking industry. Further, in view of the apparent massive effectivity, we seriously question the capabilities of involved suppliers to support this effort from an administrative and logistical standpoint. In this respect, we estimate that there are approximately 40,000 independent fleet or equipment operators that fabricate air brake hose assemblies in maintaining their equipment. In addition, we believe there are approximately 60,000 equipment and component dealerships that are active suppliers to the truck market. The potential effectivity of your labeling/tagging requirement could reasonably be expanded to supplier operations other than those that are primarily related to the automative or trucking industry: many mill supply, hydraulic, and farm equipment outlets service the trucking industry by means of providing hose, fittings, or hose assemblies. The collective effect of your regulation could involve several million suppliers.

Our Mr. C. P. Boling visited your office on February 12 and requested clarification or interpretation regarding several facets of the tagging requirement. On behalf of our customers that operate multiple repair operations, we requested clarification as to the necessity for a code number for each operating location. Additional clarification was requested as to applicability in view of the severe impact of this requirement as mentioned above.

As of this date, many of our questions are left unanswered and the effective date of the referenced regulation is eight working days away. As the primary hose and fitting supplier to the trucking industry, we are most concerned with any regulation that affects the sale and subsequent supply of our product line. In this regard, it is our intent to comply with all governmental regulations. However, it is our obligation to question the need for tagging operations at user level; and to question the basis under which effectivity at this trade level is necessary, practical, or in the public interest. We do not believe that the authors of the referenced regulation intended that this specific requirement encompass equipment operator maintenance facilities. Rather, the tagging of hose assemblies might properly include hose and fitting manufacturers.

In view of the apparent confusion as to who this specific requirement applies to, the potentially severe negative impact of mass effectivity, and the questions that still remain unanswered, we strongly recommend that tagging requirements per se be suspended pending a thorough evaluation. In any event, we urge that your office clarify the applicability of this specific requirement as related to users or fleets that are primarily involved with repairing or maintaining their equipment. If this requirement is applicable to equipment maintenance facilities, we believe an unnecessary and costly burden will be placed on fleet operators, with no positive result that will contribute to public safety.

Yours very truly,

A. J. Bowie -- General Manager Western Operations

ID: nht75-1.25

DATE: 09/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Weatherhead Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 9, 1975, concerning the banding requirements of Standard No. 106-74. You asked whether the requirement for a band may be avoided in the situation where a hose manufacturer makes a hose assembly to a vehicle manufacturer's "specified requirements," under the exception for hoses "assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer."

The exception in the standard for assemblies made by a vehicle manufacturer cannot be interpreted to apply to those made by a hose manufacturer, as you suggested, so the answer to your question must be no. It is the intent of the standard to distinguish between the two situations you described.

We are presently reviewing the labeling requirements of the brake hose standard in light of your letter and other information. If you wish to present further data and arguments toward the revocation of the banding requirement, the appropriate form in which to do so would be a petition for rulemaking under Part 552.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

July 9, 1975

Reference: MUE-561

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Applicability Ruling FMVSS 571.106 Para. S5.2.4

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Hydraulic brake hose assemblies that are assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer need not be labeled by means of a band around the assembly. Elimination of this labeling band saves at least 3% on the cost of most hydraulic brake hose assemblies. The Weatherhead Company is not a vehicle manufacturer, therefore, the many millions of new vehicle hydraulic brake hose assemblies that we make are now costing 3% more than those assembled and installed by vehicle manufacturers. The resultant cost differential may cause The Weatherhead Company a substantial loss of business or a severe economic hardship. The vehicle manufacturers that are presently our customers may choose to assemble their own hydraulic brake hose to achieve reduced costs. Obviously, orders competitively bid with vehicle manufacturers will be lost or profits jeopardized due to the 3% cost differential.

Relief from this unnecessary burden can be obtained without regulatory effect by a favorable ruling on the applicability of Para. S5.2.4 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Counsel.

Question: Can "except for those assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him" (from Para. S5.2.4) be interpreted to include assemblies that are assembled by anyone (such as Weatherhead) so long as they are assembled to the vehicle manufacturer's specified requirements and are then installed in vehicles manufactured by him?

This ruling is considered appropriate by Weatherhead since new vehicle assemblies are certified by the vehicle manufacturer's certification of the complete vehicle and the assemblies are normally made to his specified requirements. In addition, absolute traceability of these new vehicle assemblies is already there without the labeling band. After-market assemblies would still have to be banded since they would not be installed by the vehicle manufacturer.

Your prompt response to our question of interpretation of applicability of the labeling rule for hydraulic brake hose assemblies would be appreciated.

Yours very truly,

THE WEATHERHEAD COMPANY

John H. Mueler, Manager, Engineering Standards

ID: nht75-1.26

DATE: 12/08/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Brainerd & Bridges

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your October 30, 1975, letter requesting clarification of the status of the banding requirement of Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has granted petitions, filed by General Motors Corporation and Ford Motor Company, which requested deletion of the banding requirement. This deletion is the "change now being developed in our rulemaking proceedings" to which you have referred. The complete elimination of the banding requirement is inconsistent with any substitute labeling requirement. The petition of your client, Kugelfischer Georg Shafer & Co., was denied for this reason.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. It does indicate, however, a determination that there is a reasonable possibility that the requested amendment will be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. If the NHTSA determines that such an amendment would not be appropriate, the amendment which you have requested will be considered as an alternative. We do expect to issue a proposal in the near future.

SINCERELY,

BRAINERD & BRIDGES

October 30, 1975

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

REF: N40-30

On September 29, 1975 you sent me a letter a photo of which is attached, in which your Department denied the petition of our client, Kugelfischer Georg Schafer & Co. for an amendment of the banding requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

In your letter you stated that the amendment has been denied because it ". . . is inconsistent with the deletion of the banding requirement": Of course the amendment went specifically to the request that the banding requirement be waived under circumstances in which positive identification through multiple other means was at all times assured. Waiver of the banding requirement under such circumstances would not have relinquished any advantage or omitted any function inasmuch as the sole purpose of the banding requirement is to insure identity of manufacturer.

In any event, you have also stated that perhaps a "change now being developed in the rulemaking proceedings will be satisfactory" to Kugelfischer Georg Schafer & Co.. Would you be kind to advise me when such change is expected and what the nature thereof may be. Our client is intimately concerned with this problem and regrets that our prior petitions were sufficiently unclear as to have failed to explain the redundancy of the banding requirement under circumstances in which manufacturer-identity is otherwise clearly established.

Andrew W. Brainerd

ID: nht75-1.27

DATE: 09/29/75

FROM: ANDREW G. DETRICH FOR ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Brainerd & Bridges

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to the May 26, 1975, petition of your client, Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer & Co., for an amendment of the banding requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has granted the petitions of General Motors Corporation and Ford Motor Company to delete the banding requirement. A proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced. Because the amendment requested by your client is inconsistent with the deletion of the banding requirement, in the strict sense, that petition is hereby denied. You may find, however, that the change now being developed in our rulemaking proceedings will be satisfactory to your client.

ID: nht75-1.28

DATE: 09/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Hydraulic Hose Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 28, 1975, concerning the banding requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

Notice 18 (40 FR 38159, August 27, 1975) amended the standard to facilitate the depletion of inventories of brake hose, end fittings, and assemblies which do not meet certain labeling requirements. With regard to the assembly banding requirement, the amendment merely extends the period during which vehicle manufacturers may use unbanded assemblies which were manufactured before March 1, 1975. There is no change in the requirement that assemblies manufactured on and after that date (other than those assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him) be labeled with a band as specified in S5.2.4 of the standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

August 28, 1975

Office of the Chief Council -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Would you please render a legal interpretation on Notice 18 of MVSS 106. The specific question is if assembliers of hydraulic brake hose assemblies are still required to "label by means of a band around (hydraulic) brake hose assembly" as orginally required in S 5.2.4 of MVSS 106. We are currently labeling by such a band.

Thank you,

CONTINENTAL HYDRAULIC HOSE CORP. -- John H. Elgin, Vice President

Attachment Omitted.

ID: nht75-1.29

DATE: 04/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ohio Hydraulics

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 7, 1975, to Mr. Francis Armstong of this agency, concerning possible changes in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

On March 4, 1975, the NHTSA proposed a change in the definition of "brake hose assembly" which would exclude from the standard's requirements certain assemblies made for repair of used vehicles (40 F.R. 8962, copy enclosed.) As proposed, the change would not exclude assemblies made by hose distributors. Several of the comments responding to the proposal have suggested that such distributor-made assemblies also be excluded.

When a final decision is made on this issue, it will be published in the Federal Register.

ID: nht75-1.3

DATE: 03/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Paul Utans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 3, 1975 N40-30 (TWH)

Mr. Paul Utans 55 Concord Street Englewood, New Jersey 07621

Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your January 19, 1975, questions whether S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, permit a brake fluid warning statement on a filler cap to be partially obscured by a locking component placed over it, and whether the statement may include the name of an automobile manufacturer in association with the recommended type of brake fluid.

The answer to both of your questions is no. Section S5.4.3(b) requires that the statement be "located so as to be visible by direct view". This requirement prohibits an arrangement which would obscure any part of the statement, as would the design described in the drawings which accompany your letter. Section S5.4.3(b) permits a location within 4 inches of the brake fluid reservoir filler plug or cap to accommodate arrangements which do not permit use of the filler cap as a location.

The content of the brake fluid warning statement required by S5.4.3 is specified in every respect other than designation of the recommended type of brake fluid. However, S5.4.3 does limit the permissible designation to "the recommended type of brake fluid as specified in 49 CFR S?571.116" and sets out an example of "DOT 3". These criteria do not permit the addition of an automobile manufacturer's name. Such a recommendation could, of course, appear separately in the vehicle's owner's manual.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-1.30

DATE: 06/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Floyd, Kramer & Lambrecht

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 25, 1975, concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to the Wabco Westinghouse Duo-Matic Coupler.

You have described the Coupler as a device which replaces the glad hand coupler now used by most manufacturers to connect truck tractor and trailer brake lines. Because the brake hose which attaches to the Coupler is equipped with its own end fittings, the Coupler itself is not an end fitting. Therefore, Standard No. 106-74 is inapplicable.

The Coupler is, however, subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 393.45 and 393.46, of which I have enclosed a copy. Please direct any questions you may have concerning interpretation of these requirements to the Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Highway Administration, at 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

April 25, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attention: Mark Schwimmer

Re: Wabco Westinghouse Duo-Matic Coupler

Dear Mr. Schwimmer:

Reference is made to our telephone conversation on April 11, 1975, concerning the applicability of M.V.S.S. No. 106-74 and Part 566-Manufacturer Identification, to our above referenced product. As indicated, we represent the importer of this equipment in the United States and wish to comply fully with your agency before distribution is begun in this country. Enclosed please find:

1. Three copies of a product description for Wabco Westinghouse Duo-Matic Coupler, Model No. 452 803,

2. Three copies of product description for Wabco Westinghouse Duo-Matic Coupler, Model No. 452 802,

3. Assorted photographs of the coupler showing the unit with and without brake hose end fittings. The black and white picture shows the unit installed on a Norwegian vehicle.

As indicated above, we are interested as to whether the above cited regulations apply to these units. It should be noted that we don't feel this is a "brake hose end fitting", as defined in your regulations, as a fitting is placed on the brake hose prior to the brake hose being attached to our unit. The end fittings are not part of our unit. Our unit simply replaces the "glad hand coupler" now used by most manufacturers to couple the hose end fittings of the tractor and trailer truck units.

We also feel that our units do not constitute a "brake hose assembly" as defined in your regulations, as, again, our unit does not include brake hoses or the end fittings of brake hoses, but merely couples end fittings together between tractor and trailer or between two trailers.

We would also advise you that the above referenced units are used in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and New Zealand and have been so used in said countries since 1971.

We would request from you the following:

1. Whether the above cited regulations apply to our products.

2. Whether any other regulations of your agency apply to these products.

If any further additional information is required for you to make the above determination, please notify us. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter, and I remain

Sincerely,

FLOYD, KRAMER & LAMBRECHT -- Kenneth B. Kramer

Encls.

ID: nht75-1.31

DATE: 06/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of December 12, 1974, requesting an interpretation of the definition of "permanently attached end fitting" appearing in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

You have described a process of heat shrinking plastic vacuum booster hose over short corrugated metal connecting tubes, the ends of which are flared to retain threaded hex fittings. You have submitted sample hose assemblies and requested confirmation of your interpretation that the end fittings are permanently attached. While these fittings may meet the common understanding of the words "permanently attached," Standard No. 106-74 defines "Permanently attached end fitting" as:

an end fitting that is attached by deformation of the fitting about the hose by crimping or swaging, or an end fitting that is attached by use of a sacrificial sleeve or ferrule that requires replacement each time a hose assembly is rebuilt.

Deformation of the hose about the fitting by heat shrinking is not "deformation of the fitting about the hose by crimping or swaging." The latter part of the definition is inapplicable because the assemblies are not subject to being rebuilt. Therefore, to classify these end fittings as permanently attached would require an amendment of the standard. Such an amendment is being considered.

Your January 7, 1975, petition for reconsideration, requesting exclusion of the above described vacuum hose from the coverage of Standard No. 106-74, was received more than 30 days after the most recent amendment of the definition of "brake hose". Therefore, it has been treated as a petition for rulemaking. The Standard defines "brake hose" as:

a flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

The conduit between the vacuum booster and vacuum pump in your brake booster circuit clearly falls within this definition, and hence is subject to the Standard's requirements. The NHTSA has concluded that, because of its flexibility, this hose is exposed to the same hazards as the more traditional types of vacuum brake hose and so should be subject to the same performance requirements. Accordingly, your petition to amend the definition is denied. The conduit between the vacuum pump and the intake manifold, however, falls outside the definition of "brake hose" because, as described by Mr. Craig Jones in a conversation with Mr. Howard Dugoff of this agency on March 17, 1975, the booster system produces full vacuum even when this conduit fails. Therefore, this conduit need not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 106-74.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

December 12, 1974

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Brake Hoses

Gentlemen:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106; Brake Hoses, defines under Section S4 a "permanently attached end fitting" as being a fitting that is attached by deformation of the fitting about the hose by crimping or swaging or an end fitting that is attached by use of a sacrificial sleeve or ferrule that requires replacement each time a hose assembly is rebuilt.

Vacuum booster circuit conduit can be constructed with materials and techniques so as to satisfy, what we believe to be, the intent of this definition. Specifically, thermoset plastic materials can be heat shrunk over corrugated connections at end fittings and mid-circuit devices such as check valves. Additionally, threaded hex fittings can be secured to metal end pipes by means of flaring. These construction techniques not only provide satisfactory performance but result in an assembly that cannot be disassembled without the disstruction of one or all of the various components. Examples of these construction techniques have been forwarded to the Docket Room.

These assemblies as used on Mercedes-Benz vehicles are completely and finally assembled by our suppliers. Installation of these assemblies into our vehicles entails only the threading of the fittings into the various parts of the vacuum cricuit. There is no final construction of these hose assemblies in our manufacturing facilities. Additionally, these assemblies are offered for spare parts usage only as complete assemblies.

We hereby request clarification as to whether or not this type of vacuum conduit assembly construction satisfies the intent of the definition of permanently attached end fittings as used in this Standard and thereby permit banded identification of the complete assembly rather than a separate identification of each component.

Should you require additional information or material to clarify this request, do not hesitate in contacting this office.

Very truly yours,

Heinz W. Gerth Assistant Vice President Engineering

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

January 7, 1975

Office of The Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Subject: Petition for Reconsideration FMVSS 106, Brake Hose

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to discussions with Mr. Driver in Washington on July 26, 1974 and with Mr. Dugoff on November 4, 1974 during his visit to Germany, we would like to restate our position that the flexible vacuum conduit used in Mercedes-Benz passenger vehicles in the brake boost circuit does not fall within the definition of brake hose as outlined in Standard 106.

While this particular conduit may not satisfy the hose flexibility requirements of paragraphs S9.2.2, S9.2.3, S9.2.7 and S9.2.10, it does offer the important advantages of being resistant to high temperature and ageing.

Additionally, the installation in Mercedes-Benz vehicles is such that it is subject to very little vibration between the intake manifold and booster. The material was specifically chosen because its limited flexibility permits safer, simpler installation requiring fewer mounting brackets. The complete assembly, when installed, is still sufficiently rigid so as to prevent any abrasion, and in appearance is similar to tubing so that a mechanic will not be tempted to push it aside to gain more workspace.

A sample of this assembly has been forwarded to the Docket Section for review. Should you request additional material or information for this Petition for Reconsideration, please do not hesitate in contacting this office.

Very truly yours,

Heinz W. Gerth Assistant Vice President Engineering

ID: nht75-1.32

DATE: 11/06/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mercer Machine & Hydraulics, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your October 17, 1975, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. I understand that your company manufactures, from hose and end fittings supplied by other manufacturers, hydraulic brake hose assemblies for use in motor vehicles.

For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of the standard (including two recent Federal Register notices) and an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

The standard specifies performance and labeling requirements for brake hose, end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. As an assembly manufacturer, you must certify that your assemblies comply with the standard by affixing a band as set out in S5.2.4. A designation of your choice should identify you as the assembler. You need register this designation with the NHTSA only once, even if you also manufacture air brake hose assemblies.

While the standard generally requires assemblies to be manufactured from conforming hose and end fittings, an exception (set out in S12.) permits the use of hose and fittings which meet the performance requirements but not the labeling requirements, until August 31, 1976. (The labeling requirements for hose and fittings became effective September 1, 1974; this exception is designed to facilitate the depletion of inventories of such components manufactured before that date.)

The standard does not specify the testing which you must do; it does specify the performance levels which assemblies must meet when tested by the NHTSA for compliance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, requires you to conduct a notification and remedy campaign with respect to noncomplying assemblies. You are also subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each noncomplying assembly (not to exceed $ 800,000 for each related series of noncompliances). The amount of testing which you perform has no effect on your notification and remedy obligations. If, however, you did exercise due care, you are not liable for the civil penalty. "Due care" is a flexible concept. It is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the size of your company, the amount of testing you perform, and other factors.