ID: aiam4461

"Dear Mr. Rossow: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of Standard No. l2l, Air Brake Systems. You asked whether a proposed design would meet the requirements of S5.l.2. Your question is responded to below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Under section S5.l.2, trucks and buses are required to have the following equipment: 'Reservoirs. One or more service reservoir systems, from which air is delivered to the brake chambers, and either an automatic condensate drain valve for each service reservoir or a supply reservoir between the service reservoir system and the source of air pressure. You stated that some of your existing air braked trucks utilize a supply reservoir or wet tank between the service reservoir system and the air compressor without using automatic condensate drain valves on the service reservoirs. You noted that the supply reservoir functions as a means of removing excess water vapor from the air supply to avoid water contamination of the braking system and works on thermodynamic principles whereby water condenses to a liquid as the hot compressed air cools. Your proposed design would utilize an air dryer between the service reservoir system and the air compressor. According to your letter, the air dryer serves the same function as the supply reservoir in your existing system but works on a different principle. You stated that the moist, compressed air passes through a filter media contained in a small canister sized reservoir. The material, a desiccant, has a high chemical affinity for water. The water absorbs on the desiccant and is later purged by stored dry air. The air dryer would have an integral automatic condensate drain valve. Since your proposed design would not include an automatic condensate drain valve for each service reservoir, the issue raised by your letter is whether it complies with S5.l.2's option for 'a supply reservoir between the service reservoir system and the source of air pressure.' You stated that you believe the air dryer with automatic condensate drain is the functional equivalent of the more generally accepted embodiment of a supply reservoir in the context of S5.l.2. You also noted that Standard No. l2l does not specify a separate volume for the supply reservoir, although it does require in S5.l.2.l that the combined volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs be at least l2 times the total service brake chamber volume. You suggested that if the volume of the service reservoirs is l2 times the volume of the service brake chambers, it would appear that there is no requirement for a specific volume in the supply reservoir. While Standard No. l2l does not include a definition for 'supply reservoir,' the term is one that is commonly understood. For example, you indicated in your letter that some of your current brake system designs utilize the 'more generally accepted embodiment of a supply reservoir.' In considering whether a particular item of equipment can be considered a 'supply reservoir,' we believe that effect must be given to both 'supply' and 'reservoir.' The dictionary defines 'reservoir' as 'a receptacle or chamber for holding a liquid or fluid, as oil or gas.' The word 'supply' is defined as 'to furnish or provide.' Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition). The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines 'air reservoir' as '(a) storage container for compressed air.' SAE Recommended Practice J656g, 'Automotive Brake Definitions and Nomenclature.' Thus, in order to qualify as a 'supply reservoir,' an item of equipment must hold or store air in order to furnish or provide the air to the rest of the brake system. The information provided with your letter does not provide sufficient information to determine whether your air dryer qualifies as a 'supply reservoir.' In particular, the information does not indicate whether the air dryer holds other than a de minimis amount of air. While your letter is correct that there is no requirement for a specific volume in the supply reservoir if the volume of the service reservoirs is l2 times the volume of the service brake chambers, an air dryer with a de minimis volume could not be considered to hold or store air in order to furnish or provide the air to the rest of the brake system. On the other hand, if a supply reservoir provides an air cleaning function as well as holding or storing air in order to furnish or provide the air to the rest of the brake system, it would still be a supply reservoir. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: 9886

AIR MAIL

Mr. S. Greiff PARS Passive Rhckhaltesysteme GmbH Borsigstrabe 2 63/55 Alzenau Germany

Dear Mr. Greiff:

This responds to your letter of April 19, 1994, requesting an interpretation of the 500 foot minimum runway length in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Federal motor vehicle safety standards Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301.

Laboratory Test Procedures are provided to contracted laboratories as guidelines for conducting compliance tests. The Laboratory Test Procedures do not limit the requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. None of the standards referenced in your letter include any requirement for minimum runway length. Instead, the standards specify that the collision into the fixed barrier will occur at any speed up to and including 30 mph.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:6/8/94

ID: nht94-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Greiff -- PARS, Passive Ruckhaltesysteme GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/19/94 From S. Greiff To US Department of Transportation (OCC-9886)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Greiff:

This responds to your letter of April 19, 1994, requesting an interpretation of the 500 foot minimum runway length in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Federal motor vehicle safety standards Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301.

Laboratory Test Procedures are provided to contracted laboratories as guidelines for conducting compliance tests. The Laboratory Test Procedures do not limit the requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. None of the standar ds referenced in your letter include any requirement for minimum runway length. Instead, the standards specify that the collision into the fixed barrier will occur at any speed up to and including 30 mph.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht71-1.11

DATE: 03/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1971, to Mr. Lewis C. Owen of this office concerning an interpretation on your lens assembly, SF-3610703.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires a minimum effective projected illuminated area for Class A turn signal lamps of 12 square inches on motor vehicles other than passenger cars and motorcycles. The subject lens assembly used in a turn signal lamp assembly with the opaque ornament does not appear to meet the 12 square inches minimum requirement. The calculations for the area, as determined by the method contained in our October 28, 1970, letter to Mr. E. W. Bernitt, were based on measurements of the ornament, because the detail dimensions were not supplied.

The backup lamp design you discussed in a telephone conversation with Mr. Owen also apparently does not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. If you would like an interpretation on this backup lamp, please furnish information on the design similar to that supplied with the subject letter.

ID: 11316

The Honorable Bob Clement
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-4205

Dear Congressman Clement:

Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1995, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Dale Allen Pommer concerning his attempts to have a third seat belt installed in the back seat of his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. Mr Pommer has been told that this cannot be done because of safety laws. You requested comments on Mr. Pommer's letter. As explained below, there is no Federal prohibition against the modification Mr. Pommer would like done to his vehicle. However, Federal law does place some limits on how the modification is done. The installation of additional seat belts must be done in a way that does not compromise the performance of the existing seat belts.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are minimum standards, and may be exceeded by manufacturers. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture.

After the first retail sale, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC '30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that it does not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

A safety belt is an item of motor vehicle equipment and all safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as

complying with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The additional belt which might be added to Mr. Pommer's vehicle must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209.

In addition to Standard No. 209, the agency has issued two additional safety standards which apply to new vehicles and affect safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer would have been required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at each rear designated seating position.

A "designated seating position" is defined by NHTSA regulations as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion...Any bench or split- bench seat ...having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions.

Since the 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer had a rear bench seat with 49.5 inches of hip room, that seat was required to have a minimum of two lap belts.

The "make inoperative" prohibition discussed earlier would not prohibit a business from adding a third seat belt to Mr. Pommer's vehicle. In addition, the anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210. However, in adding the third seat belt, it is possible that the existing belts and

anchorages would have to be relocated. The businesses contacted by Mr. Pommer may be concerned that the belts and anchorages could not be removed and replaced without "making inoperative" the compliance of those belts and anchorages.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208#209#210 d:11/14/95

ID: 10878r

Mr. Musa K. Farmand
Gonz555-B Blanding Boulevard
Orange Park, FL 32073

Dear Mr. Farmand:

This responds to your letter of April 27, 1995. Your letter concerns a law suit in which you represent plaintiffs injured in an automobile accident. In this law suit, the counsel for the defendant has moved to amend his answer to assert that 49 CFR 571.208, paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2) requires each state to allow for mitigation of damages in any seat belt use law and that paragraph preempts the Florida mandatory seat belt law. According to your letter, the Florida law "does not allow a mitigation of damages defense with respect to an alleged failure to wear a seat belt." As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agrees with you that the Florida safety belt use law is neither expressly nor impliedly preempted by Federal law.

Purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2)

Before discussing the issue of preemption, I want to discuss the background and purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2). That paragraph was added to Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) as part of a final rule issued July 17, 1984 concerning automatic restraints (49 FR 28962). That final rule required all new cars to have automatic protection (air bags or automatic belts) starting in the 1990 model year. The final rule included a provision that the automatic restraint requirement would be rescinded if the Secretary of Transportation determined, not later than April 1, 1989, that a sufficient number of States had enacted belt use laws meeting certain minimum criteria to cover at least two-thirds of the U.S. population (paragraph S4.1.5). Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so, in part because not enough States adopted mandatory seat belt use laws of any

sort prior to April 1, 1989. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars.

The minimum criteria were set forth in S4.1.5.2 of Standard No. 208 . One of the criteria was "a provision specifying that the violation of the belt usage requirement may be used to mitigate damages..." (S4.1.5.2(c)(2)). However, S4.1.5 neither purported to require nor was intended to require States to enact safety belt use laws. In addition, S4.1.5 did not require that any State safety belt use laws had to incorporate the minimum criteria of S4.1.5.2. Paragraph S4.1.5 merely provided that the Secretary would rescind the automatic restraint requirement if he or she determined that a sufficient number of States enacted laws which met the criteria of S4.1.5.2 by April 1, 1989.

Preemption

The Florida safety belt use law is not and never has been either expressly or impliedly preempted by Federal law.

Standard No. 208 was issued under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 which expressly preempts state laws only to the extent provided by section 30103. That section provides for the express preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards that are not identical to Federal standards. However, the Florida seat belt law is not a motor vehicle safety standard within the meaning of Chapter 301, since it does not regulate motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance. Accordingly, the Florida law is not expressly preempted.

The Florida law is not impliedly preempted because (1) Congress has not occupied the field of regulation of the behavior of motor vehicle occupants; and (2) the Florida seat belt law does not conflict with any Federal law or interfere with the objectives of Federal law.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref: 208 d:6/14/95 Your letter correctly notes that this provision was deleted from Standard No. 208 by a final rule issued on September 2, 1993 (58 FR 46551).

ID: 0705r

Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler
Manager of Government Relations
Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.
P.O. Box 25252
Santa Ana, CA 92718-2016

Dear Mr. Shetler:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 123 permit a motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator to be green.

You have noted that, under Table III of Standard No. 108, SAE J588 NOV84 is the appropriate standard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has incorporated by reference for motorcycle turn signal lamps. You have further noted that the SAE standard specifies requirements for turn signal pilot indicators if the front turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Finally, paragraph 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 specifies that the indicator, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow-colored light. On the other hand, Standard No. 123, which specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification, does not specify a color for turn signal pilot indicators.

You believe that SAE J588 was written with passenger cars in mind and that its color and area requirements are specified because the location of an outside indicator lamp is further away than a lamp located inside the vehicle on the instrument panel. You also believe that Standard No. 123 does not need to address distance from the driver's eye because the turn signal lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the driver's eye. Thus, you have concluded that any pilot lamp color would be acceptable.

We have reviewed specifications of both the SAE and Standard No. 123. SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and, under Table III, is the standard specified for motorcycle turn signal lamps. Because paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108 does not contain a section modifying the applicability of J588 to motorcycles, all the requirements of J588 apply to motorcycles, including

turn signal pilot indicators and their color. All that Standard No. 123 does, through Table III, is to specify the shape of the turn signal indicator. It is silent as to the color of the indicator.

We believe that you are correct in your conclusion that J588 was not written with motorcycles in mind, at least for two-wheeled motorcycles such as Kawasaki makes. Two colors are prescribed by SAE J588, the choice of which depends on the location of the indicator. Under paragraph 5.4.3.2, a green-colored light "with a minimum area of 18 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicator is located inside the vehicle." Under 5.4.3.3 a yellow-colored light with "a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for example on the front fenders." Since two-wheeled motorcycles do not have enclosed cabins, all references to "inside" and "outside" the vehicle are inapposite.

Since you brought this matter to our attention, we have conducted an informal survey of the color of turn signal indicators on motorcycles sold in the United States. We find that the predominant color is amber, though Harley-Davidson, accounting for 12% of the market, uses green. We view the use of either color as in accord with J588. Therefore, if Kawasaki wishes to change its indicator color from amber to green, it will not violate Standard No. 108 by doing so.

As J588's color specifications are coupled with those for the minimum illuminated area of the display, and you have not raised the question of an appropriate size for a green turn signal indicator, we call your attention to paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard No. 123 which requires that the display for turn signal lamps and other equipment "be visible to a seated operator under daylight conditions."

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to answer them for you (202- 366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/3/95

ID: 1985-04.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. David Walsh

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David Walsh 16892 Centralia Redford, Michigan 48240

Dear Mr. Walsh:

Thank you for your letter of September 15, 1985 inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to a product you have developed. You described the product as a mini-venetian blind that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the blind is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your product.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Vo. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard Vo. 205. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles. You asked about State laws affecting your product. I suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which may be able to tell you about State laws or refer you to the appropriate officials in the States in which you wish to sell your product. The address for AAMVA is Suite 910, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

David Walsh 16892 Centralia Redford, Michigan 48240 Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 September 15, 1985 Dear Sir,

Recently I developed a product for use on four-door passenger cars; designed to act as a sun visor for rear seat occupants. This product, known as the Autoblind, is a fully functional mini-venetian blind. The attached photographs show an automobile with the Autoblind in place. The Autoblind is not a permanent fixture on the car, and the slats can be adjusted to allow sun blockage but continued vision.

I have contacted the Michigan Department of Commerce to determine the legality of this product in the state. From their standpoint, use of this product is legal provided the automobile is equipped with two outside side-view mirrors.

However, it has been suggested that I also obtain a federal ruling for this product. Would the use of the Autoblind, on the rear compartment side windows, violate any federal laws?

Also, if use of this product meets federal safety standards, could you suggest a method in which I could learn if its use would violate any state laws?

Many thanks for your attention. Sincerely Yours, David Walsh

ID: 24157.ztv

Robert G. Mills, Supervisor, Homologation
Triumph Motorcycles, Ltd.
Jacknell Road
Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 3BS
United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Mills:

This is in reply to your fax of March 14, 2002, asking three questions with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS No. 108). Pursuant to our request, you provided supplemental information on April 17, 2002.

Your questions are:

"1. If an SAE recommended practice that is referenced in FMVSS 108 is revised and updated by SAE, is the latest revision . . . automatically adopted in FMVSS 108? If not, does an earlier dated version remain in the regulation?

SAE materials that are referenced and subreferenced in FMVSS No. 108 are not automatically updated when the SAE revises them, and "earlier dated versions" remain in effect. That is because an SAE update requires an amendment to FMVSS No. 108 in order to be incorporated as a requirement. Under U.S. law, amendments to Federal regulations such as FMVSS No.108 must be proposed for public comment before they can be adopted.

2. You describe a new headlamp design and ask for confirmation of your conclusion that it complies with S7.9.6.2(b) of FMVSS No. 108.

Paragraph S7.9.6.2(b) requires that:

"If the [motorcycle headlamp] system consists of two headlamps, each of which provides both an upper and lower beam, the headlamps shall be mounted either at the same height and symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline or mounted on the vertical centerline. If the headlamps are horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline, the distance between the closest edges of their effective projected luminous lens areas shall not be greater than 200mm (8 in)."

In your design, there would be "two visibly separate headlights" which would be placed "in one seamless housing," each headlamp providing an upper and lower beam, and each lamp placed symmetrically about the vertical centerline. Further, "[o]n each side, there will be clear cover placed over the outside of the lamp." You believe that this headlamp design is allowable but report that your supplier disagrees. In his view, a headlamp is permitted a maximum of two bulbs, and that use of a single housing effectively creates a four-bulb headlamp which is not permitted.

We evaluated a similar situation in our letter of February 22, 1999, to Tadashi Suzuki of Stanley Electric Co. (copy enclosed). Our letter commented that "it is possible to design a headlamp with a single lens but with separate housings and chambers; this type of design would effectively create two headlamps." However, the supplementary information that you furnished clarifies that the Triumph headlighting system is designed to be installed in a single housing, and that the upper and lower beam headlamps are not separable from the housing. This design differs from that posited by Stanley and, in our opinion, could not be considered a two-lamp headlamp system. As such, the requirements of S7.9.6.2(b) do not apply to this design, and Triumph needs to ensure that this headlamp complies with the requirements of S7.9.6.2(a).

We would like to further comment that a headlamp with four light sources is permitted as a motorcycle headlamp. While there is a limitation on the number of light sources for motor vehicle headlamps, there is no limitation for motorcycle headlamps.

"3. Table IV of FMVSS 108 states that the minimum separation distance between a turn signal and a headlight must be 4 inches. However, since turn signals must comply with the requirements of SAE J588, does the factoring table in SAE J588 apply if we want to mount the turn signals closer to the headlights than 4 inches? If is difficult for us to decide if close mounting of turn signals is permissible as FMVSS [108] appears to preclude mounting turn signals closer than 4 inches yet J588 gives you a possibility to do so."

We were asked this question by BMW in a letter of August 15, 1983, and I enclose a copy of our response to Karl-Heinz Ziwicka. The interpretation remains valid. The minimum spacing requirements established by Table IV between motorcycle headlamps and turn signal lamps must be met, for the reasons expressed in our letter, notwithstanding the fact that SAE J588 NOV84 and its predecessor in effect at that time permit a closer spacing of these lamps if a multiplier is applied to the minimum luminous intensities.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
Ref:108
d.5/24/02

ID: nht76-1.17

DATE: 07/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Parker Hannifin Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 24, 1976, letter concerning the application of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to thermoplastic tubing of 1/8 inch nominal outside diameter that is used in "auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself."

You have pointed out that it is difficult to label tubing of this diameter with letters that are 1/8 inch high, and requested an amendment of the standard to permit the labeling of such brake hoses with letters that are 1/16 inch high.

Because the tubing that you have described is not manufactured for use in the brake system itself, it is not "brake hose" as that term is defined in Standard No. 106-74 and is therefore not subject to any of the standard's requirements. In fact, although the standard does not prohibit the manufacture of air brake hose of 1/8-inch outer diameter, we are unaware at this time of the existence of any hose or tubing of that diameter that meets the definition of "brake hose". Therefore, the conformity or nonconformity of the tubing in question with the performance or labeling requirements of the standard is a matter of private contract between Parker Hannifin Corporation and those truck manufacturers that are requesting conformity.

In consideration of the possibility that 1/8-inch outer diameter tubing may in the future be used in brake systems, however, the NHTSA has decided to grant your petition to reduce to 1/16 inch the minimum required lettering height on brake hoses of such diameter. Accordingly, a proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily 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.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION

M. Schwimmer -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

March 24, 1976

Subject: CFR 571, STANDARD 106 SECTIONS 5.2.2 and 7.2 "MARKING"

Gentlemen:

As presently constituted, FMVSS 106 requires that the Department of Transportation marking shall be a minimum of 1/8" high. Note specifically Sections 5.2.2, 5.2.2 (a), 5.2.2 (b), 5.2.2 (c), 5.2.2 (d), and 7.2 We have determined that legible marking of this height cannot be printed efficiently by existing production equipment upon thermoplastic tubing of 1/8" nominal outside diameter. This height of letter would cover a total span of 114.5 degrees if in perfect alignment. Even with a grooved marking wheel, we have established that 60 degrees is the practical upper limit for the lettering height to span. Beyond this span, the skewed movement between type and its own printing at the top and bottom of each letter causes perceptible smudging, so that the printing actually becomes less readable instead of more so.

Major usage of 1/8" nominal outside diameter thermoplastic tubing on highway trucks seems to be in auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself. Nevertheless, the truck manufacturers have required that this size conform to FMVSS 106 for safety reasons. If a complete failure of these lines should occur, they reason that the volume of compressed air supply momentarily lost could create a significant adverse effect upon the brake system. Not holding this size to the same requirements as all others would thus be inconsistent with the stated purpose of FMVSS 106:

"To reduce deaths and injuries occurring as a result of brake system failure from pressure . . . lost due to hose or hose assembly rupture."

We wish to make the following two alternative petitions in this regard:

1. We petition that the minimum lettering height of required marking on 1/8" nominal outside diameter airbrake tubing be changed from 1/8" to 1/16".

2. In the event that it is determined that the usage of 1/8" nominal outside diameter airbrake tubing lies beyond the scope of FMVSS 106, we petition for a clear directive which excludes this size from the standard and requires that it must not bear the marking called out in the sections of the standard which are referenced above.

Very truly yours,

W. E. Currie -- Chief Engineer

cc: W. Hertel; C. Foote; T. Landy