ID: nht74-5.2

DATE: 02/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 11, 1974, and an earlier letter received from Mr. J. K. Smith dated December 14, 1973, forwarding to us for approval revised draft defect notification letters in International campaigns IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081), IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078), IH 73513 (NHTSA 730125), IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126) -- two drafts, IH 73520 (NHTSA 730207), IH 73521 (NHTSA 730208). You ask if the revised letters may be sent First Class mail as opposed to Certified mail.

We appreciate your efforts to comply with both the letter and spirit of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577), but we find that your revised owner notification letters do not comply with the regulations. We deal with each notification separately below.

IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081). The third paragraph of your letter appears to represent an attempt to comply with both @ 577.4(c) requiring a description of the defect, and @ 577.4(d), requiring an evaluation of the risk to traffic safety related to the defect. We find that this letter fails to adequately describe the defect as the phrase, "unwanted vehicle speed" is vague, and consequently meaningless. Any speed in excess of the driver's input would be "unwanted." We believe to adequately describe the defect, the amount of unwanted speed should be quantified, at least in general terms. If, as quite likely, this may differ from vehicle to vehicle, we believe the letter should contain an indication of the most adverse case. In evaluating the risk you state that the condition can result in vehicle crash if not corrected by the driver. However, you do not indicate how the driver can correct the problem, and the facts as you present them, a jammed throttle

linkage in a moving vehicle, seem to preclude any possibility that the driver can "correct" the condition apart from somehow stopping the vehicle. Without a clear explanation, we believe that the reference to the possibility of correction is misleading. We do not, therefore, consider your statement to be responsive to the requirement of @ 577.4(d)(1)(ii).

Section 577.4(e)(1)(ii) requires an estimate by the manufacturer of the day by which dealers will be supplied with parts and instructions for correcting the defect. Your letter states that most dealers have parts, but if they do not, that parts are "usually" available at parts depots within 72 hours. We question the latter part of your statement, particularly as it appears in each notification letter you submit. The estimate must be a specific day, based on the facts of each particular campaign. The requirement assumes, because notification campaigns usually involve other than normal service items and apply to large numbers of vehicles, that manufacturers will take special steps to ensure the availability of parts. Your statement would be appropriate only if repairs can be accomplished using parts normally stocked by dealers, and your company is taking no special steps to supply parts to dealers (or parts depots). Even if this is the case, we believe your letter should include that explanation for your customers.

IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078). We do not find this notification letter to comply with Part 577. I response to your question, the use of the words, "may exist" in the first sentence of the second paragraph is not permitted under @ 577.4(b), which calls for a precise statement. Your next sentence, indicating that the defect may not exist in each vehicle, is permitted under the regulations. Your description of the defect as some loss of "stopping ability" fails to comply with @ 577.4(c) for the same reason as the phrase "unwanted speed" in campaign IH73505. The loss of braking power should be quantified, as the worst possible case if it varies from vehicle to vehicle. Our comments made with reference to IH 73505 regarding compliance with @ 577.4(e)(1)(ii) are equally applicable here.

IH 73513 (NHTSA 730125). This notification letter does not conform to Part 577 for reasons identical to those provided for campaign IH 73505, NHTSA 730081.

IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126) 2 proposals. We do not find the notification letter equating the defect with the violation of Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations to contain, for that reason, an appropriate description of the defect (@ 577.4(c)) and we do not discuss that draft further. With respect to the

the other draft, we do not find the description of the defect to be sufficient under @ 577.4(c). Specifically, there is no explanation why the gas cap is incorrect, and how it can cause an explosion. In addition, the letter does not comply with @ 577.4(e)(1)(ii) for the reasons provided in our evaluation of campaign notice IH 78505 (NHTSA 730081).

IH 73520 (NHTSA 730207). This notification letter does not conform to Part 577 for reasons identical to those provided for campaign IH 73505, NHTSA 730081.

IH 73521 (NHTSA 730206). This letter does not conform for reasons similar to those provided for campaign IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078) and IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126). Specifically, to conform to @ 577.4(c), the degree of additional brake pedal effort should be quantified, and an explanation should be provided on why the use of "single wrap" brake hose can result in a loss of vacuum assist. Similarly, the letter does not conform to @ 577.4(e)(1)(ii) for the reasons provided for campaign IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081).

The regulations require notification letters which conform to Part 577 to be sent Certified mail. Consequently, the revised letters must also be sent Certified mail.

ID: nht74-5.20

DATE: 02/21/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Patrick; Anderson and McDonald

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 30, 1974, requesting information concerning odometer disclosure requirements.

The Federal odometer disclosure regulation requires each transferor of a motor vehicle to furnish to the transferee a written statement signed by the transferor containing the odometer reading at the time of transfer. If the transferor knows the registered mileage to be incorrect, he must include a statement in the disclosure document that the mileage is unknown.

In order for a transferor of a motor vehicle to be subject to the sanctions of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, the mileage must be incorrectly disclosed with the transferor's knowledge of the inaccuracy.

As you requested, I am enclosing the relevant portions of the Act and the regulation. You also might be interested in the enclosed consumer affairs fact sheet. Responding to your request concerning information that has been provided to the auto industry in general, the National Automobile Dealers Association has been involved in an active campaign to make the auto industry familiar with the Federal odometer requirements. They may be able to provide you with the information you desire.

We would be pleased to answer any further inquiries you may have.

ENCLS.

PATRICK, ANDERSON AND MCDONALD

January 30, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: U. S. Department of Transportation Rules requiring disclosure of odometer reading and true mileage of automobiles

I have been retained by Jerry R. Freed to represent his son, Daniel E. Freed, in a civil suit brought in the Federal Court for the Northern District of Indiana against McHenry Olds-Cadillac, Inc., a new car dealer, and Walter R. Moon, d/b/a Moon Motor Sales, a used car dealer. (Civil No. 73-S-238).

This civil action was filed under Sub-chapter 4 Odometer Requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Costs Savings Act, Public Law 92-213, now incorporated in the U. S. Code at Title 15, and, more specifically, at Sections 1981 through 1990.

Prior to my entry into this case, Mr. Jerry R. Freed, received a letter in response to his many inquiries from the U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway and Safety Administration, Region 5, at Chicago Heights, Illinois. Enclosed you will find a copy of that letter suggesting further inquiry to you concerning further technical questions regarding this law.

The pertinent facts of this case are as follows:

1. On July 16, 1973, Clara Dale Bennett, bought a new car from McHenry Olds-Cadillac, Inc. and traded in an automobile showing 47,000 miles on its odometer.

2. On August 13, 1973, McHenry Olds-Cadillac, Inc. sold said used car to Moon Motors and presented to Moon Motors an odometer (mileage) statement purportedly signed by Clara Dale Bennett, a copy of which is attached hereto.

3. On August 24, 1973, Moon Motors sold said subject used car to Daniel Lee Freed and exhibited to Mr. Freed the attached odometer (mileage) statement purportedly signed by the original owner, Clara Dale Bennett.

4. Within a few days from this last sale, Daniel Freed noted that the odometer failed to log the miles properly, showing only tenths of a mile and no units or further miles.

5. Three disinterested parties in the used car business have estimated the actual mileage of the subject vehicle to be somewhere between 70,000 and 10,000 miles.

My specific question in regard to these facts is the following:

Is each transferor of an automobile required by(Illegible Word) S. Code Title 15, Section 1988, and the Department of Transportation Rules thereunder, to give a written disclosure of mileage based upon his own personal knowledge and with his own signature?

I would very much appreciate your opinion in regard to this fact pattern as well as a copy of the department's rules in regard to mileage disclosure and copies of any information disseminated to the Auto Sales Industry in general.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Rett F. Donnelly

Enclosures

cc: Gordon G. Lindquist, Regional Administrator U. S. Department of Transportation; Jerry R. Freed

590.6 DISCLOSURE FORM

ODOMETER (MILEAGE) STATEMENT

FEDERAL REGULATIONS REQUIRE YOU TO STATE THE ODOMETER MILEAGE UPON TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP. AN INACCURATE STATEMENT MAY MAKE YOU LIABLE FOR DAMAGES TO YOUR TRANSFEREE, PURSUANT TO S 409 (a) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE INFORMATION AND COST SAVINGS ACT OF 1972, PUBLIC LAW 92-513.)

I, 47000 STATE THAT THE ODOMETER MILEAGE ON THE VEHICLE DESCRIBED BELOW IS

CLARA DALE, BENNETT (CHECK THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT, IF APPLICABLE)

I FURTHER STATE THAT THE ACTUAL MILEAGE DIFFERS FROM THE ODOMETER READING FOR REASONS OTHER THAN ODOMETER CALIBRATION ERROR AND THAT THE ACTUAL MILEAGE IS UNKNOWN.

MAKE: BUICK

BODY TYPE: 2H

YEAR: 67

MODEL: G487

VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 4948 77H941149

LAST PLATE NUMBER:

STATE:

YR.:

TRANSFEROR'S (SELLER'S) CURRENT ADDRESS:

CLARA DALE BENNETT

DATE OF THIS STATEMENT

ORIGINAL TRANSFEREE (BUYER)

ID: nht74-5.21

DATE: 04/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1974, request for confirmation that the clamps and check valve that attach a vacuum hose assembly to a brake booster are not subject to Standard No. 106, Brake hoses.

A brake hose end fitting is defined as "a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose." As described by you, the couplers are the clamps and the check valve is an engine component to which the hose has been attached by the clamp couplers. Therefore your interpretation is correct that the clamps and check valve are not subject to Standard No. 106.

Yours Truly,

BMW of North America, Inc.

March 19, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Mr. L. Schneider, Chief Counsel

Re: Marking of Brake Hoses

This is subject to FMVS's No. 106 Brake Hose Markings. In our brake system, BMW uses a vacuum hose assembly which leads from the intake manifold to the brake booster and which includes also a check valve. The components are assembled by BMW, the manufacturer, who, of course, also certifies the finished vehicle.

It is BMW's understanding that the vacuum hose, which is used for this assembly, has to be marked with the manufacturer's code, or with the manufacturer's marking as long as no code is available. The clamps which are used for this assembly as well as the check valve which meets the free flow requirements, don't need to be marked.

If our assumption is incorrect, we kindly ask that you inform us accordingly.

Office of O. Weinreich Director of Engineering Signed by M. Rein Staff Engineer

ID: nht74-5.22

DATE: 04/12/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Driver and Vehicle Administration; Michigan Department of State

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Some time ago you asked our regional office in Chicago for advice concerning the sufficiency of the odometer disclosure form developed by Michigan for use on its certificates of title and other motor vehicle transfer documents. This will serve to confirm the informal opinion you received from Dick Cook of the regional staff.

As pointed out in the letter sent you by General Motors, the Michigan form lacks certain informational items that are specified in the Federal odometer disclosure regulation. To comply fully with the regulation, the Michigan form would have to include space for the vehicle model and the last plate number. However, we do not regard the absence of these items to be serious enough to mandate a change in the Michigan form, in that the other information provided on the form appears sufficient to accurately identify the vehicle. A transferor who completes the present form and thereby fails to give the additional information would not be misleading the transferee and would therefore not be subject to civil action under the Act. It is our view that a transferor who completes the disclosure statement on the Michigan form would not need to submit an additional disclosure form.

ID: nht74-5.23

DATE: 04/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 1, 1973, letter and subsequent communication with Mr. Sidney Williams of the NHTSA Handling and Stability Division concerning the conformity of your trailers with Standard 121. You asked particularly about the diversion of service reservoir air for use in the air suspension unit, the location of the service reservoir check valve, and test conditions for extendable platform trailers. This will also acknowledge receipt of your March 14, 1974, petition for longer application and release time for special length trailers.

The NHTSA has not issued any prohibition on the use of service brake system air in auxiliary systems such as windshield wipers and air suspensions. You may tap air from the system as long as the system still meets all the requirements listed - in particular the ability of the reservoir, when pressurized to 90 psi, to release the vehicle's parking brakes at least once.

The check valve may be placed at the isolated tank to protect the trailer service reservoir as specified in S5.2.1.5, as you have detailed it in your schematic drawing.

With regard to extendable platform trailers, they should be certified in the most adverse configuration. No special configuration has been specified, and the NHTSA is free to test the vehicle at any length at which it is designed to operate.

The Fruehauf Corporation has also petitioned for relief from the application and release time requirement as it applies to extendable trailers. These petitions are under consideration and will be answered when that consideration is complete.

ID: nht74-5.24

DATE: 04/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jesse R. Hollins

COPYEE: T. W. HERLIHY

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 23, 1974 request for an explanation of why Docket 69-7; Notice 26 was sent to you in response to your February 15, 1974, telegram request for the reasons or needs for such a (alternative interlock) proposal or amendment."

The Notice 26 preamble states in the fourth paragraph appearing on page 9831 of Volume 38 of the Federal Register the "reasons or needs" for proposing an alternative interlock system: that "it may prove desirable for some manufacturers". The proposal would allow greater freedom in the design of a belt interlock system while preserving the direct use incentive of the present sequential ignition interlock system. The Automotive Need conclusion to which you refer, that one effect of the alternative interlock would be to permit operation of the vehicle in reverse, was not a reason cited or relied on by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in making the proposal.

I hope I have made clear why Notice 26 was sent to you. I have enclosed Notice 31 for your information.

March 23, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

Re: N40-30 (TWH)

I acknowledge the receipt of a copy of Docket 69-7; Notice 26 which was enclosed with your letter as per above reference number.

My telegram of February 14th. 1974 to the attention of Robert L. Carter, Assistant Administrator of NHTSA asked for certain information specifically pertaining to Docket 69-7; Notice 31.

I am at a loss to understand your reason for submitting Notice 26 to me.

Can you explain this?

Thanking you, I am

Very truly yours

JESSE R. HOLLINS

ID: nht74-5.25

DATE: 04/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 8, 1974, letter reviewing our disposition of Volkswagen's petition to add a new crash protection option to S4.1.2 of Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208). You requested a determination of whether the seat belt assembly described in that petition constitutes a passive restraint system for purposes of Standard 208, that is, one that requires "no action" by vehicle occupants.

The Volkswagen assembly consists of a single diagonal belt for restraint of the upper torso and an energy-absorbing knee bolster. Mounting of the upper torso restraint to the door causes the belt to move forward during occupant entry and then fall back across the occupant's torso when he is seated and the door is closed.

The NHTSA issued an interpretation of what constitutes a "passive" restraint system on May 4, 1971 (36 FR 4600):

The concept of an occupant protection system that requires "no action by vehicle occupants" as used in Standard No. 208 is intended to designate a system that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle.

The question of what constitutes "no action by vehicle occupants" in a vehicle equipped with (presumptively) passive belts is best considered in two stages: (1) entry and exit from the vehicle, and (2) positioning of the belt for safety and comfort.

Entry and exit action "that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present

2 in the vehicle" means that a person is not hampered in his normal movements by the presence of the belt system. A test of this is whether a human occupant of approximately the dimensions of the 50th percentile adult male finds it necessary to take additional actions to displace the belt or associated components in order to enter or leave the seating position in question. An example of impermissible action would be the necessity of manually pushing a belt out of the way to gain access to the seat. Displacement of the components incidental to normal entry and exit, or merely for the convenience of the occupant, would not be prohibited. Examples of permissible displacement would be brushing against the upper torso restraint during seating, or grasping the torso restraint to close the door.

The second question relates to the usefulness of the system once the occupant has been seated. The essence of a passive restraint is that it provides at least the minimum level of protection without relying on occupant action to deploy the restraint. At this stage, then, the question is whether an occupant who has seated himself without taking any "additional action" is in fact protected in a 30 mi/h impact. This can be measured by conducting the impact tests with the belt positioned on the test dummy in the orientation that results when a human occupant enters the vehicle according to the first test described above. It would not be required that the belt position itself for maximum comfort of the human occupant, if it met the safety requirements. For example, if the belt were to fall across the upper arm instead of the clavicle, but still passed the test, the system would be considered conforming.

The procedure for conducting this evaluation would be to have a human occupant enter the vehicle without taking any "additional actions" to displace the belt, to note the location of the belt on him before he exists, to position the test dummy in accordance with S8.1 of Standard 208, to position the belt as it positioned itself on the sample occupant, and then to conduct the impact tests. The exit evaluation would require the human occupant to be seated with the restraint normally deployed and then exit the vehicle without needing to take any separate actions to displace the belt.

This discussion is intended to permit you to evaluate your passive belt system under the language of the May 4, 1971, interpretation.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

March 8, 1974

Lawrence Schneider National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: The Volkswagen Passive Belt

This will refer to our telephone conversation of March 6, 1974, concerning Volkwagen's passive restraint system.

On October 1, 1973, Volkswagenwerk AG and Volkswagen of America, Inc. petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to add a new crash protection option to Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard 208 in order to permit use of Volkswagen's passive belt in 1975 as well as subsequent model year passenger cars and to make available other changes in Standard 208. A copy of Volkswagen's petition is enclosed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by Notice 1, Docket 74-4 published in 39 Federal Register 3834 dated January 30, 1974, denied that part of the petition that requested the additional option. The petition was rejected as unnecessary on the grounds that Paragraph S4.5.3 of Standard 208 already permitted the use of a passive belt system "to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option." The Notice further concludes that "thus, this language permits the use of the Volkswagen passive belt system to meet the perpendicular impact protection requirements of Option 2 and to replace the required seat belt assemblies. Option 2 exists, in fact, to accommodate date the introduction of passive restraint systems like Volkswagens, which cannot yet meet all requirements of Option 1."

2

While we have recognized that Notice 1 is essentially a proposal for rule making without binding effect as a rule or regulation, it also disposes unconditionally of that part of Volkswagen's petition which sought the inclusion of an additional option. Nowhere does the Notice call upon interested persons to submit their comments with respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's denial of Volkswagen's petition for rule making. Comments are invited only in regard to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's proposal for amending Paragraphs S4.1.2.2 and S4.5.3.3

Because questions have been raised regarding the qualification of Volkswagen's new restraint concept as a system that requires no action on the part of the occupant, I would appreciate your confirmation that the system described in our petition of October 1, 1973, constitutes a passive belt within the meaning of Paragraph S4.5.3 to meet the crash protection requirements of the second option set forth in Paragraph S4.1.2.2.

Sincerely,

Gerhard P. Riechel Attorney

Enclosure

cc: Philip Hutchinson

ID: nht74-5.26

ID: nht74-5.27

DATE: 03/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; RICHARD B. DYSON; NHTSA

TO: MARUKA MACHINERY CORP. OF AMAERICA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 22, 1974, requesting information concerning three-wheel and light duty four-wheel vehicles.

As of January 1, 1974, motor vehicles of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight, other than trailers and motorcycles, became subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Currently, motorcycles are motor vehicles with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. Any three-wheel vehicles that conform to this definition must meet all standards applicable to motorcycles. Those three-wheel vehicles that differ in some respect from the definition, must satisfy the requirements of either passenger car, truck, or multipurpose passenger vehicle standards, depending upon which are appropriate.

On November 27, 1973, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amended 49 CFR 571.3(b), Definitions, of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, by revising the definition of "motorcycle" (Notice enclosed). Petitions have been received in response to the final rule and are receiving careful consideration as the agency contemplates a possible further revision of the definition.

With regard to lightweight four-wheel vehicles, as of January 1, 1974, they must comply with all standards applicable to their vehicle type. There is no special category for lightweight four-wheel vehicles.

YOURS TRULY,

February 22, 1974

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In reference to your letter of Oct. 16, 1973 your reference number N40-30(ZTY) I wish a little more information if possible.

I am not clear on the reference to the (three wheel) vehicles at this time. Would it be possible to obtain a copy of (38 FR 12818) in reference to a redefinition of "motorcycles" and what is now required of vehicles of three wheels.

I was under the opinion that your department was to define the three wheel vehicles and light four wheel vehicles (1100 to 1200 curb weight) to a separate classification. Am I correct or not in this matter?

Any information in reference to three wheel and light duty four wheel vehicles you may have as to safety requirements required for 1974 will be appreciated very much. I am very interested in this field of vehicles.

Thank you for your efforts. Please send the information to my office in South Carolina.

Grayson Conway

ID: nht74-5.28

DATE: 03/19/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Girling Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Girling's February 22, 1974, petition for abbreviated labeling on short(Illegible Word) hose in cases where the 6-inch interval required by S5.2.2 of Standard 106, Brake hoses, makes complete labeling impossible.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has modified the labeling requirement of February 26, 1974 (39 FR 7425) by specifying an interval of "not more than 6 inches" to permit the manufacture and labeling of short hose length without waste. Lettering may be any width so long as it is at least one-eighth of an inch high. Your petition, therefore, is denied as unnecessary.

Sincerely,

Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

February 22, 1974

Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Standard No. 106 - BRAKE HOSES (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 8)

Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 8) published in the Federal Register Vol.38, No.218 of November 13, 1974, requires Vacuum Brake Hoses to be labelled at 6 inch intervals with the following information, using letters at least 1/8 inch high -:

1) Symbol DOT

2) Manufacturers identification (for example, GY)

3) Month & year of manufacture (for example, 10/74)

4) Inside diameter of the hose (for example, 13/32)

5) VL or VH

It has become apparent that some brake system installations use vacuum hoses which are less than 6 inches long, sometimes only 1 1/2 inches long - and it appears physically impossible to print all of the above labelling requirements on some of these short vacuum brake hoses.

The various US State legislatures (for example, Pennsylvania) have always accepted this situation in relation to their brake hose labelling requirements and permitted vacuum brake hoses with only items 1) and 3) labelled, adding item 2) if possible.

We would therefore propose that very short vacuum brake hose lengths may be labelled: DOT - 10/74 and if possible: DOT - GY - 10/74.

We would very much appreciate your early, favourable ruling on this proposal.

P. Oppenheimer, Technical Legislation Manager