[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21185-21186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-8931]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17539; Notice 1]


Delphi Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Decision of 
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Delphi Corporation (Delphi), has determined that at least one of 
the fittings on the ends of certain brake hose assemblies that it 
produced between January 2001 and February 2004 do not comply with 
S5.2.4 and S5.2.4.1 of 49 CFR 571.106, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, ``Brake hoses.'' Delphi has filed an 
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect and 
Noncompliance Reports.''
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Delphi has petitioned 
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Delphi's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are a total of approximately 1534 aftermarket brake hoses 
produced between January 2001 and February 2004. S5.2.4 requires that:

    Each hydraulic brake hose assembly, except those sold as part of 
a motor vehicle, shall be labeled by means of a band around the 
brake hose assembly as specified in this paragraph or, at the option 
of the manufacturer, by means of labeling as specified in S5.4.1.

S5.4.1 states that:

    At least one end fitting of a hydraulic brake hose assembly 
shall be etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least 
one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of 
the hose assembly.

    Delphi believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety, and that no corrective action is warranted. Delphi 
states that the subject brake hose assemblies meet the functional 
performance requirements of the standard for the hose, the fittings, 
and the assembly, and therefore will perform exactly as intended in the 
vehicle and will not in any way affect the safety of the vehicle. 
Delphi further states that the label on the brake hose fitting is 
redundant to the label on the brake hose itself when the manufacturer 
of the hose and the fitting are the same, and in this case the same 
manufacturer's logo that should be on the fittings is printed on all of 
the hose that is part of the same assembly.
    Delphi states that, since S5.2.4 allows a band to be placed around 
the hose as an alternative to embossing the logo on one of the 
fittings, if the S5.2.4 option had been used, the band would be placed 
on top of the brake hose which already contains the same logo, which 
appears to be redundant. Delphi also asserts that, since the brake hose 
assemblies at issue are only sold by the vehicle manufacturer's parts 
division, if the vehicle owner desired to know the brake hose assembly 
manufacturer, the vehicle manufacturer could provide this information. 
Delphi states that since these brake hoses are specific to a specific 
vehicle, and are not sold at normal consumer automotive retail outlets, 
the person desiring to replace the brake hose assembly could only find 
them at the vehicle manufacturer's authorized outlet.
    Delphi also states:

    There is precedence [sic] for finding that label requirements 
that are required by Crash Avoidance Standards (the 100 series) do 
not rise to the level of an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle 
safety. For example, in the tire standards it often happens that the 
tire is either not labeled or even mislabeled. NHTSA has 
consistently found that knowledgeable mechanics would not be misled 
in such cases and would install the proper tires even if the tire on 
the vehicle were mislabeled. In this case the vehicle manufacturer's 
outlet in most cases * * * is the automotive dealer [who] would look 
up the part number based on the model, the model year, and perhaps 
with specific equipment. The identification of the brake hose 
assembly manufacturer would not even come into play.
    The Motor Vehicle Safety Act S30117(b) requires manufacturers of 
motor vehicles and tires to maintain records of purchasers; however, 
no such requirement exists for other types of equipment. In those 
cases where a brake hose is replaced in a dealership, it might be 
possible to identify the owners of those vehicles; assuming that the 
vehicle was not sold after the brake hose assembly was replaced. In 
other cases where someone replaces the brake hose assembly oneself 
or after the warranty period has expired using a garage or body shop 
to replace them, it is not likely that the owner could be 
determined. This means that a percentage of the owners of the total 
brake hose assemblies replaced could not be identified for a recall.

    Delphi also states that it is not aware of any vehicle customer 
complaints or any vehicle crashes that are a result of the absence of 
the logo in question.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on the petition described above. Comments must refer to the

[[Page 21186]]

docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be 
submitted by any of the following methods. Mail: Docket Management 
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, Room PL-
401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand Delivery: 
Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC. It is requested, but not required, that 
two copies of the comments be provided. The Docket Section is open on 
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays. Comments may 
be submitted electronically by logging onto the Docket Management 
System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically. Comments may be 
faxed to 1-202-493-2251, or may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments.
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received 
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will 
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or 
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal 
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: May 20, 2004.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 
1.50 and 501.8).

    Issued on: April 14, 2004.
Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 04-8931 Filed 4-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P