ID: kesler23584

Mr. Ray Kesler
Kesler Research Enterprises
PO Box 8104
Universal City, CA 91600

Dear Mr. Kesler:

This responds to your letter of August 22, 2001, asking if your mirror for original equipment manufacturers "is a permissible legal radius of curvature, information warning phrase, and using [sic] a FAIL SAFE reflective graphic concept permanently etched in glass mirror for day and night use." More specifically, you state that the radius of curvature of your mirror is 30-65 inches and your mirror contains a "ring indicator" and the phrase "Vehicles Larger than Ring Do Not Change Lanes." As explained below, your mirror is permitted only as a supplement to the mirrors required by FMVSS No. 111.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards.

FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), establishes performance and location requirements for mirrors installed in new vehicles. Several of its provisions concern the installation of convex outside rearview mirrors. Under FMVSS No. 111, only those passenger cars with inside rearview mirrors having an insufficient field of view are required to have passenger side mirrors. If convex mirrors are used, they must have a radius of curvature between 35 and 65 inches and they must be marked with the warning: "Objects in Mirror are Closer Than They Appear."

In 1991, you petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS No. 111 to require passenger side convex mirrors to have a radius of curvature of 25 inches and to have a ring indicator applied to those mirrors. After reviewing your petition, the agency denied your request, finding that your suggested mirror system could, by comparison with our currently specified convex mirror systems, have increased distortion and reduce a driver's depth perception and judgment about another vehicle's closing speed (56 FR 42715, August 29, 1991). Subsequent correspondence from this Office (enclosed) tried to make clear that products like your convex mirror with a ring sensor label are not prohibited by the current requirements in FMVSS No. 111 from being installed on vehicles, as supplements to the required mirrors.

The specifications for rearview mirror in your current correspondence appear to be identical to those contained in your previous petition except that the radius of curvature is now between 30 and 65 inches. This range of curvature, however, is not within the radius of curvature (between 35 and 65 inches) required by FMVSS No. 111. Furthermore, your rearview mirror is not marked with the warning: "Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear" as required by FMVSS No. 111. For these reasons and as explained in length in the denial notice, see 56 FR 42716, such mirrors are permitted only as supplements to mirrors required by FMVSS No. 111.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:111
d.1/9/01

ID: 06-003937drn

ID: nht93-6.11

DATE: August 13, 1993 EST

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kenneth E. Ross

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/14/93 from Kenneth E. Ross to Consumer Coordinator, NHTSA (OCC 8830)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information about a product that attaches to an automobile's back window. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that your product is a two to three inch high LED sign that extends along most of the rear window. The sign displays any message that the driver chooses. While we do not have information about State or local laws, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the applicability of Federal law on your product.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs).

In response to your question, NHTSA currently has no FMVSSs that directly apply to the product you wish to manufacture. I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect you and your product. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Automotive accessory equipment that a dealer adds before sale of a vehicle must not create a noncompliance with the FMVSSs to which the vehicle manufacturer has certified compliance. For instance, your LED sign should be mounted so that it does not block the field of view required by FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Similarly, for the vehicle to remain in compliance, your system must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. In particular, the placement of your sign might impair the effectiveness of the center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL) if it can be operated simultaneously with the CHMSL or at a time when the turn signals are flashing.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on

or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It is conceivable that your product, when placed on a vehicle's rear window, could "render inoperative" the vehicle's ability to comply with FMVSS No. 108 and FMVSS No. 111. Persons in the aforementioned categories that install your product must ensure that such installation does not render inoperative the safety protection provided by the applicable standards. Specifically, your product should be mounted so that it does not interfere with the CHMSL or turn signal lamps nor block the field-of-view required by FMVSS No. 111.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your product were placed on a rear window by the vehicle owner, then the render inoperative provision would not apply. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, you should ensure that your product does not adversely affect a vehicle's rear lamps or rearward visibility.

We are unable to advise you as to whether the laws of any State address this topic. You should consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 86-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Carol Lembke -- CL's Crafts and Florals

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Carol Lembke CL's Crafts & Florals 905 Cedar Street Charles City, Iowa 50616

This is in response to your letter of October 30, 1985, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have asked about the legality under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of "animals with lights in their eyes that work with the turn signals and brake lights to go in the backs of cars. The eyes are in red or amber".

We assume that you wish to sell these as accessories available in the aftermarket and not as original vehicle equipment. As these are not items of replacement lighting equipment but intended to supplement a vehicle's existing turn signal or stop lamp system, they are not covered by Standard No. 108 and their legality would be determined under the laws of a State where they would be in use. For example, you have told us that Iowa would allow these supplemental lamps. We recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators once more, inform them that there is no Federal prohibition on this use, and ask their advice.

You have mentioned the center high-mounted stop lamp and whether your lights might be acceptable on cars of a certain age, and not on others. Standard No. 108 requires that each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, be equipped with a third stop lamp mounted on the rear centerline not lower than three inches below the rear window (six inches on convertibles). In the initial year of use, the most frequently used area for mounting the lamp is the interior parcel shelf, where we presume that your supplemental lamp would be installed. Because your light would not meet the requirements for the center mounted lamp, it would be a violation of Federal law for a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business to remove the center mounted stop lamp and install your device. However, if the center mounted lamp is located in a place other than the parcel shelf, there would be no legal prohibition under Standard No. 108 forbidding the installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CL's Crafts & Florals 905 Cedar St. Charles City, Iowa 50616 October 30, 1985 Taylor Vinson NHTSA - Legal Counsel 5219 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th St., SW Washington, DC 20590 Dear Sir: I am writing to ask assistance on the legality of a craft item I am making. I have a craft shop and attend craft shows. Recently I started making animals with lights in their eyes that work with the turn signals and brake lights to go in the back of the cars. The eyes are in red or amber. I checked with the Iowa State DOT and was told they would be ok since they were an ornament as long as they did not block view and had red or amber eyes. I've spoken to a Small Business Representative whom suggested I go mail order or sell to stores. I've also had interest from Florida and a Rod and Custom Club since they represent the fads of the 50's and 60's. I then became concerned about going into other states, their state laws and Federal laws that might not permit this item to be sold. I don't want to invest money and lots of time into this craft item only to find out that it is illegal and could come back on me. I've been told that a possible conflict could be a code number FMVSS 108. Something having to do with the new laws on the standard center mount lighting. I'm also wondering if this lighted animal might be ok for certain age cars and not others? I've made calls to DC to: American Assoc. of Motor Vehicles, NHTSA, and Federal Motor Vehicle Dept. of Trans. - only to get passed from one department to another till finally I was told to contact your office for assistance. I'm beginning to feel that this is one of those times that I should have taken my chances instead of trying to check things out to be legal. The interest is mounting in our Auto Animals for Christmas gifts and I have another show Nov. 9th. I would appreciate your response as soon as possible so that I will know if I can go ahead or not. Thank you. Sincerely, Carol Lembke 905 Cedar St. Charles City, IA 50616 Phone: 515-228-6913

ID: nht88-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: L. T. MITCHELL -- SPECIFICATION ENGINEER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/04/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM L.T. MITCHELL, OCC - 1831

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This is in reply to your letter of April 4, 1988, bringing our attention to a conflict between a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to school bus lighting, and State requirements applicable to these vehicles.

You have informed us that a State prohibits any bus which it does not define as a school bus, from being identified as a school bus, either by words or by color, and from having the warning lamp system required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.1.4 of Fe deral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment requires each school bus to be equipped with a four or eight lamp signal system, in addition to other required lighting equipment. You have asked whether th e warning lights must be installed on school activity buses.

In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require the issuance of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. The amendments defined "school bus" as:

a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school stud ents to or from such schools or events related to such schools." (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)) (Emphasis added.)

On December 29, 1977, the then Chief Counsel of this agency issued an opinion under 15 U.S.C. 1391(14) that Head Start facilities are considered preprimary schools and that buses transporting children to and from those schools are defined as school buses under Federal law and accordingly are subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Specifically, the letter stated:

The NHTSA interprets the term "school" broadly, because the agency believes that this is the intent of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) which directed the creation of the school bus safety standards. Since t his head start

program is basically an educational program for preprimary students, the agency had determined that those facilities are schools and bus transporting children to and from them must comply with the Federal school bus safety requirements if they transp ort 10 or more passengers.

The 1977 opinion of this agency regarding Congress' 1974 mandate remains operative. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprim ary school pupils such as those in the Head Start program. Any manufacturer who omits the warning lamp system required by paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108, or who delivers a school bus with the warning lamp system inoperative, is in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and subject to civil penalties. The manufacturer is also subject to the provisions of the Act for notification and remedy of the noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

The effect of the preemption provision in section 103(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) is that a State may not adopt or enforce a standard or requirement that regulates the same aspect of safety performance as one of the Federal standards unless that St ate standard or requirement is identical to the Federal one. While the statute also permits a state to establish a higher standard of performance for vehicles procured for its own use, we would not view an exemption from the warning light requirement as a "higher standard of performance." Thus, regardless of how a State defines "school bus," a State cannot prohibit a school bus, as defined under Federal law, from being equipped with a school bus warning system that is designed and wired as required by p aragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108. Although each State has the authority to establish laws for the use of vehicles on its roads, those State laws may not override Federal laws. The effect of Federal preemption is that the school bus warning system mu st continue to operate as required by paragraph S4.1.4(b)(ii), and a State may not directly or indirectly require tampering with that equipment in order to comply with State usage laws.

Sincerely,

ID: nht80-3.45

DATE: 09/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Terry M. Bennett

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 12, 1980, concerning your importation of three passenger cars that do not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You sought to import these vehicles under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii) but Customs required you to enter them under bond, pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(iii) which requires that they be brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked to be allowed to enter these cars under 12.80(b)(1)(vii). According to your letter, you are a collector of cars which are in storage, residing and working at present in Saudi Arabia, keep three registered cars in the U.S. for the use of you and your wife while you are here, and state that you never drive the cars in your collection.

Section 12.80(b)(1)(vii) allows importation of a vehicle without conformance if it is brought in for purposes of show, test, experiment, competition, repairs, or alteration. I see nothing in your letter indicating eligibility for importation under any of these allowances. Certainly the vehicles have not been imported for purposes of "show" which we interpret as available for inspection by the public as part of a static display. Accordingly, we are unable to grant your request.

(Illegible Word) the interest of accuracy, you should know that our records, (Illegible Word) by the manufacturer, indicate that the "1968" BMW (Illegible Word) CS coupe you say was "sold to me as 1967" was, in fact, the last of that model manufactured in the month of June 1969.

SINCERELY,

AUGUST 12, 1980

Chief Counsel's office National Highway Safety (Traffic Safety) DOT

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to a conversation with Mr. George (Illegible Word) of your department I am writing to you to request a review of my situation vis a vis 3 recently imported non conforming automobiles.

The vehicles in question are:

1) 1968 BMW 2000 CS Coupe serial # 1109557 (sold to me as 1967 in South: Arabia) 2) 1975 Fewari 365BB Coupe serial # F102BB18197

3) 1975 Lamberghini Contach coupe serial # 112-0088

These vehicles were imported under U.S. customs file # ENF 4-05 NF RS through the port of Newark.

Customs, at Newark, forced my representative to change the import form category from category 7 to category 3. Stating that I was not a "registered (Illegible Word)".

I am a certifiable "carnut", and have collected cars since I was a small boy. I own more than 35 cars, many of which are stared in the facility in Gloucester (photo enclosed) my cars are mostly old, beginning with a 1905 (Illegible Word) Belleville. I keep 3 cars registered for the use of my wife and myself while we are in the USA on holiday, and certainly have no need to use a noncomforming car at any time.

I would very much appreciate it, if you would review this situation and allow me to exchange the entry status of these 3 cars to category 7.

I have posted a bond against use on the highway, in nonconforming status, I am willing to live with that.

Further, I am perfectly willing for your inspectors to drop in at any (Illegible Word) moment and inspect these vehicles to assure themselves that they are not being operated.

As I said I reside and work in Saud: Arabia. I am seldom here, never drive these cars, and fully intend to abide by the letter of the law.

Please allow me to change their status. I am faced with $ 30,000 in expenses to have (Illegible Words) only to sit in the same garage until I return at some unknown time in the future.

I will be in the USA until Aug 30, on holiday. Could you try to reach a decision by then and let me know? Thank you. Help!

Terry M. Bennett M.D

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

ID: nht81-3.26

DATE: 10/13/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paccar Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 16, 1981, in which you requested our views on whether Paccar may use its name on the certification label of vehicles manufactured by its Mexican affiliate.

This agency's regulations provide that each vehicle's certification label must contain "the full corporate or individual name of the actual assembler of the vehicle." See 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1). The only relevant exception to that requirement is set forth in section 567.4(g) (1) (i), which states that if "a vehicle is assembled by a corporation that is controlled by another corporation that assumes responsibility for conformity with the standards, the name of the controlling corporation may be used." Thus, the answer to your question depends upon whether Paccar "controls" Kenworth Mexican, the Mexican affiliate.

Your letter states that Paccar effectively owns a 49 percent interest in Kenworth Mexicana, the maximum permitted under Mexican law. Based on your telephone conversations with Roger Fairchild of this office, we understand that the vehicles to be produced in Mexico are of Paccar design, with Paccar control over all matters relating to compliance with safety standards. In fact, any design changes in the vehicle must apparently be approved by Paccar under your agreement with the Mexican company.

In these circumstances, we conclude that Paccar may use its corporate name on the Mexican vehicles' certification labels notwithstanding the less than majority equity interest in the Mexican company. The "controlling corporation" exception to the general requirement that the vehicle assembler's name must appear on the certification label was enacted in recognition of the fact that "particularly in some foreign countries, assembly of a vehicle may be performed by a subsidiary corporation controlled by a parent that is the generally known 'nameplate company.'" The agency determined that in such a sitaution, "no important purpose is served by requiring the name of a lesser-known subsidiary corporation on the label." See 34 FR 11360, July 9, 1969. Further, the agency has previously stated in one of its interpretations that the "purpose of the manufacturer's designation in the certification regulations is to identify the company that has primary technical responsibility for conformity of the design and quality control of the assembly." Particularly with respect to the design aspects, Paccar meets this test.

If you have further questions in this area, please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht74-2.40

DATE: 08/05/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Frank Schoen

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 19, 1974, inquiring as to what information must be included in a bill of sale upon the transfer of a motorcycle.

The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires that a written disclosure of a vehicle's recorded mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer. The disclosure statement need not, however, be included as part of the bill of sale and may be executed to the buyer as a separate document. If Northline Honda failed to comply with this disclosure requirement, a civil remedy in the amount of $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater, may be available to you under section 409 of the Act, if the violation was committed with the intent to defraud.

Section 403 of the Act makes it unlawful for any person to disconnect, reset, or alter the odometer of a vehicle with the intent to change the number of miles indicated thereon. If Northline Honda violated this section with the intent to defraud, section 409 of the Act would provide you with the same civil remedy as noted above.

One way to determine if such an alteration has occurred is to compare the current mileage with that indicated on the disclosure statement provided to Northline Honda by the motorcycle's prior owner. If Northline has no such document you might attempt to find out who the prior owner was and contact him about the mileage. A mechanic might also check out the motorcycle to see if there is any evidence indicating that the odometer has been tampered with or that the cycle has travelled more miles than the odometer registers.

On the basis of the information you have supplied, I suggest that you contact an attorney about the possibility of bringing an action against Northline Honda. I am enclosing relevant portions of the Act and the odometer disclosure requirements for your use.

If you are in need of any further information, please do not hesitate to let us know.

YOURS TRULY,

June 19, 1974

Dear Sir

I want to see if you can help me no one in Houston, Texas can.

I bought a used bike from Northline Honda which was missented to me and unsafe to ride. I bought it on on May 23, 1974 carried it back May 24, 1974 and told them that it was (Illegible Word) (Illegible Word) and unsafe to ride and wanted them to put the money paid for it on a new bike and that I would pay the difference. Mr. Jim Handcock would not do it, they did a few minor repairs on it and told me to come and get it that afternoon, so I did. I brought it back home rode it around in our yard a little that afternoon and sat on May 26 I carried it to the school yard and a friend was riding it and the handle bar broke into and fliped the bike me got to looking at it and the handle bars were almost into in two places.

I call Northline Honda and told them what happen and they said they couldn't do anything. I wrote to U.S. Department of Transportation in (Illegible Word) Texas, and they sent me a letter saying if I could prove that the odometer reading were incorrect that I could get my money back.

Do you know how I would go about checking on it and who and where do they keep a record of odometer readings.

And do you know anything about Delinquent Transfer penality. They put this one in my name when it should have been in their name.

I am sending you a copy of the bill of sale that they gave me.

So you can see they didn't put the odometer reading or the plate number didn't put the date or sign it.

Mr. Jim Hardcock say's that that is his business and that no one can tell him how to run it.

Is the (Illegible Word) number all that is required on a bill of sale or do you (Illegible Word) to put the motor number on it.

Help me if you can or tell me who I can go to for help.

(Illegible Word) Schoen 8022 Cabat St Houston, Texas 77028

ID: nht76-1.44

DATE: 06/21/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your May 19, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the effective dates of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

You were particularly concerned with one paragraph in the preamble of Notice 4 (41 FR 18659; May 6, 1976; Docket No. 71-19). That notice delayed the effective dates of certain requirements of the standard. The paragraph in question is:

Manufacturers should note that, apart from the changed effective date for the requirement in S5.1.1 that vehicles be equipped with properly marked rims, there is no delay in the September 1, 1976, effective date of the standard's basic requirement, S5.1 (Tire and Rim Selection).

Section S5.2, Rim Marking, is the only the section of the standard that applies directly to rims. Section S5.1 applies directly to vehicles. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, however, two aspects of S5.1 (both found in S5.1.1) involve rims as well.

The first sentence of S5.1.1 includes a "suitability" requirement:

. . . each vehicle . . . shall be equipped with . . . rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires . . .

The second sentence, as amended by Notice 4, reads.

On and after September 1, 1979, each such vehicle shall be equipped with rims that meet the requirements of this standard.

The paragraph in question is simply a reminder that the "suitability" requirement, among others, is effective September 1, 1976, as originally established in Notice 3 (41 FR 3478; January 23, 1976).

ID: 9249

Mr. Jim Davis
President
Russell Performance Products
2645 Gundry Avenue
Signal Hill, CA 90806

Dear Mr. Davis:

This responds to your letters to Mr. David Elias, formerly of this office, about the requirements of Standard 106, "Brake Hoses," for labeling hydraulic brake hose assemblies. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explain in your letters that Russell holds a license to manufacture brake hose assemblies from Titeflex Corporation, a manufacturer of brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies. Titeflex supplies Russell with braided hose, and Russell manufactures the end fittings that Titeflex designed, using Titeflex's engineering drawings. Russell assembles the Titeflex hose with the end fittings, and "markets these hose assemblies [in] the marketplace."

You ask about marking the hose assemblies with a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the assembly, pursuant to S5.2.4 of Standard 106. You ask whether both Russell's and Titeflex's designations are required to be labeled, or only the designation of Russell.

The answer is only Russell's designation is required to be marked. Russell is manufacturing the assemblies and will market the assemblies. Russell's designation will identify Russell as the manufacturer of the assembly in the event of a possible noncompliance or defect with the assembly.

You also ask whether Titeflex's hose must be labeled with the information specified in S5.2.1 and S5.2.2 of Standard 106. The first part of your question asks whether the labeling requirements apply to bulk brake hose "with a stainless braided outer covering." The answer is yes. The standard does not exclude braided brake hoses from the labeling requirements.

The second part of this question asks about the required labeling for hoses that are part of brake hose assemblies. You ask for confirmation that Standard 106 does not require the hose to be labeled once the hose is part of a brake hose assembly. Your understanding is correct with regard to S5.2.2. The last sentence of that paragraph states: "The information [specified in S5.2.2] need not be present on hose that is sold as part of a brake hose assembly or a motor vehicle." (The quoted sentence was adopted at 56 FR 50520, October 7, 1991, to replace the sentence you referred to.) Accordingly, the hose need not bear the labeling of S5.2.2 when the hose is part of an assembly. However, the hose must still bear the stripes required by S5.2.1 unless, to quote from S5.2.1, the hose is "manufactured for use only in an assembly whose end fittings prevent its installation in a twisted orientation in either side of the vehicle."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at the above address, or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Nicholas S. Copass Sales Manager Titeflex Industrial America 170 Tapley Street Springfield, MA 01104-2893 ref:106 d:5/12/94