Commissioning a Disc-Brake Conversion Kit Overseas: Who Becomes the Manufacturer?

Often yes, through a doctrine that predates modern products liability and that a majority of states have adopted in some form. Restatement (First) of Torts section 400, from 1934, states it in one sentence: "One who puts out as his own product a chattel manufactured by another is subject to the same liability as though he were its manufacturer." Comment d, added to the Restatement (Second) in 1965, drew the line where you would expect — a party whose only connection to the goods is distribution does not put them out as its own, but "one puts out a chattel as his own product when he puts it out under his name or affixes to it his trade name or trademark."

Courts apply it to facts that look uncomfortably familiar to anyone assembling kits. In Chevron USA Inc. v. Aker Maritime Inc. (5th Cir. 2010), a non-manufacturing distributor shipped bolts in boxes carrying its own labels; the court held it was the apparent manufacturer and liable, even though the actual maker's initials appeared in small markings on the bolts themselves.

Several states have a statutory carve-out, and it repays reading closely because a commissioned kit usually falls outside it. The typical formulation is that a seller is not deemed a manufacturer merely for placing a private label on a product — provided it did not otherwise specify how the product shall be produced or control the manufacturing process, and provided it discloses the actual manufacturer. Commissioning a kit means you specified how it should be produced. If you are also not naming the factory, you have failed both halves at once.

One, mostly: the flexible hose assembly. FMVSS 106 at 49 CFR 571.106 "specifies labeling and performance requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings," and applies to "passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles, and to hydraulic, air, and vacuum brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings for use in those vehicles." That reaches the equipment; it does not turn on the model year of the car the hose ends up on. The corresponding industry document is SAE J1401, covering hydraulic brake hose assemblies for nonpetroleum-base fluids and the identification method for the hose manufacturer.

Now the part that catches people. The DOT symbol on a brake hose is not an approval anyone granted. FMVSS 106 describes the required band marking as including "The symbol DOT constituting certification by the hose assembler that the hose assembly conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards," alongside "A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly" filed with NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. The certifier is the assembler, and the certification is self-made. A quote sheet saying "DOT approved" describes something that does not exist — and if your kit contains a hose assembly you specified, the certification on that band is effectively yours.

Three, and they are separate from one another. SEMA's summary of federal regulation of aftermarket parts sets out the shape: NHTSA regulates equipment required on all new motor vehicles — lighting, tires, mirrors, brake hoses, glazing and rims among them — and "When offering a product for sale, the manufacturer is required to certify that the product meets all applicable FMVSS." It adds that "There are separate registration requirements for manufacturers of tires, retreads, brake hoses and glazing."

This is the connection nobody draws, and it is why the third row of that table is risk management rather than admin. Many states have innocent-seller statutes limiting strict liability for a party who merely sold the product — the Congressional Research Service's survey of state products-liability law counts roughly twenty. They almost universally carry the same exceptions: protection falls away where the court cannot obtain jurisdiction over the manufacturer, where the claimant cannot identify it, or where it is insolvent, immune or not subject to suit. Colorado's statute is representative in providing that where jurisdiction over the manufacturer cannot be obtained, its principal distributor or seller over whom jurisdiction can be obtained shall be deemed the manufacturer.

An offshore factory with no US agent for service of process is precisely the unreachable manufacturer those carve-outs describe, so the shield collapses onto whoever stands closest — the importer with the brand on the box. The Part 551 designation, the Part 566 filing and a hose designation on file are what make the factory reachable, and the same paperwork preserves any argument that you were a seller rather than the manufacturer. Whether that succeeds in your state is a question for your lawyer; skipping it guarantees the answer is no.

The absence of an FMVSS is not the absence of an obligation, and this is where buyers relax too early. NHTSA has stated in published interpretations that while a given aftermarket item may have no applicable standard, equipment manufacturers remain subject to the safety-defect provisions at 49 U.S.C. 30118 through 30121 — so if the manufacturer or the agency determines an item contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers and remedy it free of charge. A caliper bracket has no standard and full recall exposure at the same time.

There is a judging dimension too. AACA's guidelines treat non-factory power brakes or hydraulic brakes added to vehicles not so equipped at the factory as non-authentic, requiring the maximum deduction — while separately providing that "Modifications that are required to conform to Federal law will not cause a point deduction." A disc conversion is, by construction, a driver-car product. That is a good market; it is not the judged-car market, and a brand selling into both confuses its customers.

Two places, and we would rather be blunt. First, the flexible hose assembly. We would not put a Taiwan-sourced hose assembly into a branded kit unless the factory already holds its own filed designation and will let you name it as the assembler — and the public supplier landscape for FMVSS 106 and SAE J1401 rubber hydraulic brake hose is overwhelmingly mainland Chinese, with only isolated Taiwanese houses visible and those mostly in PTFE braided lines rather than the rubber hose a stock-appearance conversion uses. That is what the listings show, not a measured share, but it is enough: on this component, Taiwan does not solve your problem.

Second, friction: whoever owns the pad formulation owns the product, which is a capability question rather than a compliance one, and our companion piece on Taiwanese brake parts works through it. Then the limit covering everything above — nothing in this article, and no supplier audit anyone can sell you, transfers liability off your brand. For a shop building one or two cars a year, an established US brake-kit house is simply the right purchase; Classic Performance Products, SSBC-USA, Leed Brakes, MP Brakes and Wilwood all sell into that market, and their engineering and insurance carry the load. For a brand with no cover and no engineer, a brake kit is the wrong first offshore programme however good the quote looks.

If you have cleared those hurdles — counsel, cover, an engineer, and a bill of materials of brackets, hubs, dust shields, rotors and hardware rather than hose assemblies — describe the programme on our request page: chassis, years, what the kit bolts to, the load cases you defined, and the reference parts you hold. Taiwan Supplier Hub returns at least three verified manufacturers who have confirmed they want the project, within 14 days, for US$99, refunded if we cannot deliver. We source and verify suppliers; we do not certify parts, assume product liability, or reveal supplier identities before a project is commissioned.