Delphi Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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