ID: nht95-7.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 16, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John C. Golden -- Product Manager, Lighting & Electrical, Federal Mogul Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN C. GOLDEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Golden:

This responds to your request for an interpretation asking if, under NHTSA's requirements, your company may market a lighting device, called a "Lightman," for use on warning triangles. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes. However, since the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates use of warning triangles carried in commercial vehicles, that agency's regulations could also affect your product.

You explain that the Lightman is a battery operated safety strobe device, which is in the shape of an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2 inches on each side. You would like to market the Lightman specifically for use on warning triangles, but are concerned about the minimum area requirements of Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You ask, "Does the mounting of one of these devices . . . take away minimum reflective area such that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?"

As you note, Standard No. 125 specifies requirements for the configuration of warning devices. Warning devices that are subject to Standard No. 125 must be certified as meeting those configuration requirements. As we understand the Lightman, it will be sold to motorists separately from the Standard No. 125 warning devices. However, we understand that you will market the Lightman as appropriate for use with previously-certified warning devices.

There is a provision in our statute that regulates the modifications that motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses may make to certified vehicles and equipment. (See section 30122 of Title 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., copy enclosed.) However, this provision does not regulate the modifications that individuals make to their vehicles or items of equipment, such as warning triangles. Thus, under NHTSA's statute, an individual would not be precluded from placing the light on his or her equilateral triangle.

As you note in your letter, the FHWA regulates use of warning devices with regard to commercial trucks, and should be contacted about your question. Responding to your request for a contact in FHWA, we suggest Mr. James Scapellato, Director, FHWA Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, at the following address and telephone number:

400 Seventh Street, S.W. Rm. 3107 Washington, DC 20590.

Telephone: (202) 366-1790

We will be happy to forward your letter to Mr. Scapellato, if you would like us to do so.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please feel free to call Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 22525.ztv

Mr. Harold Holeman
C5 Creations
2 Renee Lane
Newark, DE 19711





Dear Mr. Holeman:

This is in reply to your email of December 26, 2000, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Your first question is whether "the standards as set forth in FMVSS 108 require that bumper bras or bumper masks have openings around the running lights, parking lights, turning signals, etc.?"

Standard No. 108 does not regulate bumper bras or masks per se. However, lighting equipment is required under Federal law to comply with all requirements of Standard No. 108 when accessory equipment such as bumper bras are installed by regulated persons, whether the equipment is installed as original equipment or aftermarket equipment. The one exception under Federal law is a bra or mask installed by the vehicle owner; if this creates a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, the owner is responsible under any applicable local laws rather than Federal law.

Your next question is "If the bra material is transparent and does not noticeably diminish the luminescence of the lights is the bra design within code without having cutouts for the lights?" Paragraph S7.8.5 prohibits "any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens" when the headlamps are activated. We view a transparent bra as an "other feature" and prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, a transparent bra could not be installed by a regulated person (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) without violating Standard No. 108, but could be installed by the vehicle owner, provided that it does not violate local laws.

You then ask "Is there a test that should or can be performed to show that the intensity of the running lights is adequate even when covered by the bumper bra?" The photometric tests for each of the lamps covered by Standard No. 108 are essentially those of the Society of Automotive Engineers, which have been incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. These are laboratory tests rather than tests conducted on the vehicle itself. They could be conducted with the transparent bra or mask material cut to fit the lens. Any diminution in light output must not result in photometric output falling below the minimum levels specified for test points in any individual standard.

Like you, we are not aware of any transparent bra or mask on the market. In general, we do not favor covering the lens of any lamp with other material. Dirt and grime may accumulate to the point that candela is reduced below the minimum specified in the standard. Further, it may not be easily removable by washing the cover.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/19/01

ID: 86-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Farmer -- Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Farmer Director of Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5335

This responds to your February 19, 1986 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards prohibit commercial businesses from using fiberglass on the exterior of school buses. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue minimum performance standards for school buses. Our safety standards do not specify the materials to be used for the exterior of school buses. However, the materials chosen by a manufacturer must be strong enough to enable the bus to meet the requirements of those standards. Among those requirements are the rollover protection ones of Standard No. 220, fuel system requirements of Standard No. 301, and strength requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, for body panel joints on school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. Manufacturers of new school buses using fiberglass for school bus exteriors must certify that their vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 19, 1986

Ms. Deadra Holm U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Holm,

We have discovered the presence of fiber glass in the outer skin of the Van Conversions manufactured by the Collins Industries Inc. of Hutchinson, Kansas. While, admittedly, we see little if any, safety hazard associated with the practice, we do forsee the possibility of legal actions "down the road" if children are seriously injured and the presence of this material is exposed.

Our school bus specifications require compliance with the National Minimum School Bus Standards as well as all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to the manufacture, sale and operation of pupil transportation equipment. My question is: Does the use of fiberglass in the manufacture of Type II school buses conflict with any known FMVSS?

An early response will be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer Director of Pupil Transportation

ID: 2706y

Mr. Dennis T. Johnston
Senior Executive Engineer
Product Engineering and
Regulatory Affairs
Sterling Motor Cars
8953 N.W. 23rd Street
Miami, Florida 33172

Dear Mr. Johnston:

This responds to your letter reporting a change in the locking system to be installed on the MY 1991 British Sterling car line. Although your letter does not explicitly request the agency determine that the change is of a de minimis nature and that therefore the Sterling vehicles containing the change would be fully covered by the previously granted exemption for Sterling vehicles, we are treating the letter as making such a request. The alternative to making such a request is to submit a modification petition under 49 CFR 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

As you are aware, the Sterling car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Austin Rover showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This exemption was issued on July 16, 1986, and appeared in the Federal Register on July 22, 1986 (51 FR 26332).

In your letter, you stated that beginning with the start of MY 1991, Sterling Motor Cars (Sterling) plans an improvement in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Sterling vehicle. The change involves the consequence of opening of the trunk when the system is armed. Currently, the system, once armed, activates when the trunk is opened, even if it is opened with the key. In order to avoid this, the antitheft device must first be disarmed before the trunk is opened. It is our understanding that Sterling plans to change the system by allowing the system to be disarmed by opening the trunk with a key and rearmed by closing the trunk lid. However, if the trunk were to be forced open without a key, the alarm would still be activated.

After reviewing the planned change to the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the change is de minimis. While the change means that opening the trunk with a key will no longer activate the alarm, the agency does not believe that activating the alarm under those circumstances contributes to theft prevention. The agency concludes that the antitheft device, as modified, will continue to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Sterling to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

If Sterling does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Sterling notify the agency of such decisions.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ref:543 d:l0/5/90

ID: 9646

Martin M. Sackoff, Ph.D.
Executive Director of Laboratories
International Testing Laboratories
578-582 Market Street
Newark, NJ 07015-2913

Dear Dr. Sackoff:

This responds to your letter to this agency with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires.

Your specific question addressed S4.2.2.4, Tire strength, which states: "Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table I when tested in accordance with S5.3." You asked for an interpretation of the term "breaking," whether it means a blowout of the tire or the breaking of the tire caused by the plunger used in the test specified in the standard.

The breaking energy test is a measure of the resistance of the tire to bruise or damage due to impact of the tire with road hazards. This agency tests such resistance in accordance with the procedures of S5.3, Tire strength, of the standard. In that test, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into the tire rib at the rate of 2 inches per minute at five test points equally spaced around the circumference of the tire. The inch-pounds of force required to push the plunger into the tire is continuously monitored. As the plunger pushes into the tire, the resistance to the plunger force increases. That resistance requires ever- increasing force applied to the plunger to continue pushing it into the tire. Ultimately, one of two things will happen:

1. The plunger will push all the way to the rim; or

2. The tire cords, plies, innerliner, or other components of the tire will stretch, separate, crack or break so that the resistance pressure of the tire diminishes. The "breaking" of the tire at that point does not require an actual blow-out although, obviously, a blow-out would constitute a "breaking."

The plunger force is measured just prior to contact with the rim as in 1 above or just prior to the force reduction described in 2 above. The measured force is then combined with the penetration of the plunger into the tire as specified in S5.3.2.3 and S5.3.2.4 of the standard. The breaking energy value of the tire is then determined by computing the average of the values obtained at the five test locations on the tire. Table I, Appendix A of the standard specifies the minimum breaking energy of tires based on tire type, size, composition, and inflation pressure.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:109 d:5/12/94

ID: 86-6.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/24/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JEFFREY S. JENSEN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/10/86 EST, TO NHTSA FROM JEFFREY S. JENSEN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Jensen:

Your letter of September 10, 1986, has been forwarded to this office for reply. You have devised a way "to inscribe lettering on the inside of car & truck tail lights so that when the brakes are applied the lettering is seen." You asked if there are any laws that apply to this concept.

Because you wish to produce this concept we shall consider it as both original equipment installed by the vehicle manufacturer, and as equipment available in the aftermarket, for purchase by a vehicle owner. The Federal regulation governing vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. It requires a manufacturer to produce vehicles with certain specified lighting devices meeting specific requirements. Further, under it, additional lighting devices and other motor vehicle equipment are permissible provided they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The requirements for stop lamps (you called them "tail lights", but taillamps are the rear lights that are on when the headlamps are on, and are not brake activated) are those of SAE Standard J586c, August 1970. It specifies photometric requirements to be met at specific test points, and a minimum effective projected luminous lens area for lamps.

With respect to compliance with the stop lamp requirements of Standard No. 108, the lettering must not prevent the lamp from meeting photometrics at the applicable test points, or from complying with the minimum area requirements. As to whether the concept would nevertheless impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps, this is a decision to be made by the vehicle manufacturer, though it is subject to review by this agency. Anything that distracts the observer of a stop lamp from instantaneously perceiving its message could be considered an impairment.

As an aftermarket device, it is not subject to Standard No. 108, but only to the restriction imposed by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that manufacturers, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses must not render inoperative in whole or in part devices such as stop lamps that are installed as original safety equipment. If your

device created a noncompliance in the stop lamp, or impaired the effectiveness of it, we would consider this the equivalent of rendering the stop lamp partially inoperative.

Your concept would also be subject to the laws of any State in which a device embodying it is sold or used. We are unable to advise you as to these laws, but you must consider them as well.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: nht74-2.23

DATE: 09/24/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B Grefory; NHTSA

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Midland-Ross' February 8, 1974, petition for an amendment of S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, to establish separate air reservoir volume requirements for several brake chamber types generally available in the air brake component market.

The standard presently requires air reservoir volumes to be a multiple of the vehicle's brake chamber volumes. Midland-Ross also requested that S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 be amended to require that a reservoir withstand hydrostatic pressure five times greater than stated on its label without rupture, or permanent circumferential deformation exceeding one percent. The standard presently requires that an air reservoir withstand internal hydrostatic pressure of five times the vehicle compressor cutout pressure or 500 pounds, whichever is greater. The pecition also requests modifications of the trailer test rig, which were made in a recent amendment of the standard (39 FR 17563, May 17, 1974).

You suggested that our requirement for air reservoir volume as a multiple of brake chamber volume will encourage installation of smaller equipment and thereby create a safety problem. We cannot agree, in view of the standard's stopping distance requirements which in effect mandate the installation of high performance components. Indications to date are that manufacturers have in fact not reduced brake chamber volumes. A certain degree of chamber stroke standardization may occur, which the NHTSA views as favorable. For these reasons your request is denied.

With regard to the air reservoir pressure requirements of S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3, you argued that a reservoir manufacturer is unable to establish the required strength of his product because he cannot control the compressor cutout pressure of the vehicle on which the reservoir is installed. It should be understood that the standard is not an equipment standard with which Midland-Ross must comply, but a vehicle standard with which the vehicle manufacturer must comply. We have determined that the reservoir should be designed to manage the pressures to which it might be exposed on the vehicle on which it is installed. The vehicle manufacturer is able to establish a compressor cutout pressure (on powered vehicles, and, based on that value, order the appropriate reservoir to meet the requirement. It is evident that commercial considerations will standard compressor cutout pressures on reasonable range of available reservoir strengths. Midland-Ross as a manufacturer of reservoirs is free to establish a range of reservoir strenghts, and label the reservoirs as described in your petition. For the reasons cited, however, your petition to mandate this is denied.

We agree the requirement that a reservoir "withstand" a certain pressure can be further specified, and we are considering a proposal to do this in the future.

At this time the NHTSA has adopted the SAE Standard No. J10a, which specifies that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation exceeding one percent.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 121 DOCKET 73-13 NOTICE #3

BY POWER CONTROLS DIVISION MIDLAND-ROSS CORPORATION

M. J. Denholm Director of Engineering

February 8, 1974

Midland-Ross regrets to find that several of the proposals issued under Notice 1 of Docket 73-13 have not been incorporated in the rule issued under Notice 3 of the Docket.

The purpose of this petition is to request reconsideration of outstanding petitions and comments not yet resolved or acted upon from previous notices. In addition, we wish to offer additional information to supplement our comments on Docket 70-16 and 17, Notice 3, and the petition for reconsideration of Docket 70-17, Notice 4.

Taking the sections as they appear in FMVSS 121 as amended by Docket 73-13, Notice 3, we ask for your consideration of the following:

S5.1.2.1

S5.2.1.2

On March 23, 1972, we petitioned for consideration of this section of Docket 70-16 and 70-17, Notice 3.

Quote: "The combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms" requires definition in that volume can be measured in more than one way resulting in significant variation in result. For example: Displacement determined by pressurizing a chamber hydrostatically to 5 psig would result in approximately 10% less volume as compared to that indicated when the same chamber is pressurized to 100 psig hydrostatically. The hydrostatic pressure would be applied using an incompressable fluid; the volume of fluid displaced being the measure of the chamber volume. We recommend the standard be revised to read as follows:

'S5.1.2.1 . . .the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms when measured with 5 psig applied to the chamber.' This will eliminate the possibility of a dual standard when determining compliance."

On August 14, 1973, we petitioned again for reconsideration of this section of Docket 70-17, Notice 4; and again on July 11, 1973, against Docket 73-13, Notice 1.

Quote: "The requirement under both these sections is restrictive and not necessarily in the public interest. For example, Midland-Ross Type 30 service chambers provide 2.75 inch stroke where units of other manufacturers are as low as 2.5 inch. The long stroke provides a desirable margin for poor brake adjustment. We believe this advantage will render our product non-competitive. To become competitive a reduction in stroke, with the attendant reduction in reservoir capacity requirement will be necessary. We feel, in light of recent experience with designs to meet FMVSS, 121, Notice 4, that this is arbitrary and an unnecessarily expensive retrograde step, caused by the wording of this section. In addition, chamber displacement varies dependent upon the applied pressure.

"This is caused by ballooning of diaphragms as pressure is increased. It should be noted that a three or four axle rigid truck would require significantly larger reservoirs under this rule than would a two-axle tractor designed to tow two or three trailers. Taking into account these three factors, it is recommended that S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 be reworded as follows:

'S5.1.2.1 The combined volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs shall be at least the value obtained by the following product: Buses, and tractors and trailers designed to tow air-braked vehicles:

(12) x (115%) x (Combined volume of all service brake chambers)

Trucks not designed to tow other air-braked vehicles: (8) x (115%) x (Combined volume of all service brake chambers)

The combined volume of all service brake chambers is that volume obtained at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms with 100 psi hydrostatic pressure applied to the chambers with the brakes adjusted as specified by the vehicle manufacturer for new, unburnished brakes.

'S5.2.1.2 The total service reservoir volume shall be at least the value obtained by the following product: (8) x (115%) x (Combined volume of all service brake chambers)

The combined volume of all service brake chambers is that volume obtained at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms with 100 psi hydrostatic pressure applied to the chambers with the brakes adjusted as specified by the vehicle manufacturer for new, unburnished brakes."

No action has resulted from any of these petitions. We feel both arguments are still valid. We would like to add additional argument to that furnished on August 14, 1973, as follows:

An optional method of determining reservoir volume would consist of using an established minimum working volume for each standard size of service chamber. The minimum working volume would then be used to compute the reservoir requirement in the manner stated in the standard. Using this approach, the need for the changes recommended on March 23, 1972, would be eliminated also. We therefore recommend the S5.1.2.1 be reworded as follows: S5.1.2.1 The combined volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs shall be determined by adding the volumes specified in Table V, Column 1 for each air-operated service brake actuator.

S.5.2.1.2 shall read:

S5.2.1.2 Total service reservoir volume shall be determined by adding the volumes specified in Table V, Column 2 for each air operated service brake actuator.

TABLE V Reservoir Volume Required Per Actuator * Column 1 * Column 2 Actuator Trucks-Buses Trailers Type 9 Diaphragm 240 cubic inches 160 cubic inches Type 12 Diaphragm 300 cubic inches 200 cubic inches Type 16 Diaphragm 528 cubic inches 352 cubic inches Type 20 Diaphragm 612 cubic inches 408 cubic inches Type 24 Diaphragm 732 cubic inches 488 cubic inches Type 30 Diaphragm 1056 cubic inches 704 cubic inches Type 36 Diaphragm 1464 cubic inches 976 cubic inches

*Piston or Rolling 12 x volume at max. 8 x volume at max.

Diaphragm working stroke working stroke

The above revisions to S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 are requested due to the variation in design of diaphragm type service brake chambers. These chambers are of generally similar construction, but because of manufacturing tolerances and slight differences in stroke length, their maximum volumes are different by a few percentage points. The current reservoir volume requirement based on maximum displacement encourages the use of small volume chambers (to reduce required reservoir volumes). In use, however, these small volume chambers provide less reserve than larger displacement units. This is true because the larger displacement units generally have slightly longer operating strokes. This additional stroke is a safety advantage in event that brake drums expand from heat buildup or shoes are allowed to wear without brake readjustment.

The chamber volume differences caused by variations in maximum stroke length are not significant to a vehicle in normal operation. This is because either chamber design would require the same amount of air to operate a properly adjusted brake; either unit when stroked to the same distance (any value short of maximum stroke; would displace nearly the same volume of air. Chamber volume requirements per brake application would be the same for either chamber design unless the stroke exceeded the maximum stroke length of the short stroke chamber. In that case, (abnormal situation) the long stroke chamber would require more air than a short stroke unit but would produce brake torque to stop the vehicle. The short stroke unit would be stopped internally without producing brake torque.

If S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 are not revised, market pressure will force redesign of long stroke chambers to limit stroke (and maximum volume). This could be carried to an extreme whereby the redesigned chambers would have even shorter strokes than current chambers. This type unit would then have economic advantages that would encourage their use; but they would actually be inferior to current chambers from a safety point of view.

The chamber volumes proposed in Table V were arrived at by applying the current requirement of 12 times chamber volume at maximum stroke (eight times for trailers) to the maximum volume of the truck industry's most common air brake chamber. These values do not represent a change in the spirit of the law, only in its detail. The original method of determining reservoir volume would be retained for piston actuators or other devices whose stroke and displacement have not become standardized in the industry.

S5.1.2.2

S5.2.1.3

On March 23, 1972, we petitioned for reconsideration of both of these sections of Docket 70-16 and 70-17, Notice 3.

Quote: "The requirement that the reservoirs under both of these sections should 'withstand' an internal hydrostatic pressure is nondefinitive and open to interpretation. In addition, manufacturers of air brake reservoirs are not necessarily in a position to determine what the cutout pressure of the compressor will be for a particular reservoir application prior to design and development of the reservoir as required under Paragraph S5.1.2.2. In addition, there is a significant inconsistency between the requirements for reservoir strength on a truck or bus and those for reservoirs used on a trailer as both reservoirs on a combination vehicle would be pressurized by the same compressor to the same pressure levels. It would appear reasonable, in the interest of safety, to adopt a common standard. It would also appear to be advisable to use a standard which is both proven and perfectly acceptable based on long periods of experience. It is therefore recommended that Paragraphs S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 be revised as follows:

'Each reservoir shall be capable of accepting a hydrostatic pressure of not less than five times the reservoir rated working pressure for a minimum of one minute. When subjected to this pressure for this time period there shall be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation exceeding 1%. The reservoirs meeting this requirement must be permanently identified for rated working pressure."

On August 14, 1973, we again petitioned for reconsideration of these sections of Docket 70-17, Notice 3. Comments were also made on Docket 73-13, Notice 1.

Quote: "The requirement that the reservoirs under both of these sections should withstand an internal hydrostatic pressure is nondefinitive and open to interpretation. In addition manufacturers of air brake reservoirs are not necessarily in a position to determine what the cutout pressure of the compressor will be for a particular reservoir application prior to design and development of the reservoir as required under Paragraph S5.1.2.2. In addition, there is a significant inconsistency between the requirements for reservoir strength on a truck or bus and those for reservoirs used on a trailer. Both reservoirs on a combination vehicle would be pressurized by the same compressor to essentially the same pressure levels. It would appear reasonable, in the interest of safety, to adopt a common standard. It would also appear to be advisable to use a standard which is both proven and perfectly acceptable based on long periods of experience. It is therefore recommended that Paragraphs S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 be revised as follows:

'Each reservoir shall be capable of accepting a hydrostatic pressure of not less than five times the reservoir rated working pressure for a minimum of one minute. When subjected to this pressure for this time period, there shall be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation exceeding 1%. The reservoirs meeting this requirement must be permanently identified for rated working pressure.'

Note: This recommendation reflects the current SAE Standard Practice (SAE J10b) in regard to reservoir certification and therefore should provide clarification without creating unnecessary hardships."

An additional point which was not specifically made in the two petitions quoted from relates to manufacturing practice and product application.

As a major reservoir manufacturer, Midland-Ross produces all reservoirs for air-braked vehicles in one of three diameters. Each diameter is engineered from differing material thicknesses to withstand a predetermined working pressure. Usually this is 150 psi. When reservoirs are supplied to the industry we have no knowledge of the compressor cutout pressure. The compressor cutout pressure is usually adjustable in service. A situation over which the reservoir manufacturer has no control. By establishing a maximum rated working pressure for the reservoir to be marked on the unit, the user then has direct knowledge of the limit to which the compressor cutout pressure can be safely adjusted. We feel that adopting this method would result in better understanding on the part of the user as this has been the standard used historically. It would eliminate the need to re-educate operators and provide a sounder basis for economic reliable manufacture and application of air brake reservoirs.

S5.3.3

S5.3.4

On March 23, 1972 we pointed out in our petition for reconsideration the inadequacies of the test standard shown in Docket 70-16 and 70-16, Notice 3, Figure 1. Partial response to this petition was exhibited in Docket 73-13, Notice 1, S6.1.12.

Docket 73-13, Notice 3, essentially returns to 70-17, Notice 3 level, thus effectively ignoring our original petition and also our comments on Docket 73-13, Notice 1, submitted to the Administration on July 11, 1973.

We ask for consideration of our updated proposal as follows:

S5.3.3 Brake actuation time. With an initial service reservoir system air pressure of 100 psi, the air pressure in each brake chamber shall reach 60 psi in not more than 0.25 second measured from the first movement of the service brake control. A vehicle designed to tow a vehicle equipped with air brakes shall be capable of meeting the above actuation time requirement with a 50-cubic-inch test reservoir connected to the control line coupler. A trailer shall meet the above requirement with its brake system connected to a trailer timing test rig as shown in Fig. 1 which meets the requirements of S5.3.3.1 and S5.3.3.2.

S5.3.3.1 The following should be added:

"The trailer test rig shown in Fig. 1 shall be constructed such that the pressure in a 50 cubic inch test volume connected to the control coupling is raised from zero to 60 psi in .063 second minimum when tested on the test rig. Time shall be measured from the first mechanical movement of the device controlling air flow to the control coupling."

S5.3.3.2 The following should be added:

"The trailer test rig shown in Figure 1 shall be constructed such that the pressure in a 50 cubic inch test volume connected to the control coupling is exhausted from 95 to 5 psi in .220 second minimum when tested on the test rig. Time shall be measured from the first mechanical movement of the device controlling air flow from the control coupling.

Figure 1 should be revised as shown:

(Graphics omitted)

S5.3.4 Brake release time. With an initial brake chamber air pressure of 95 psi, the air pressure in each brake chamber shall fall to 5 psi in not more than 0.50 second measured from the first movement of the service brake control. A vehicle designed to tow another vehicle equipped with air brakes shall be capable of meeting the above release time requirement with a 50-cubic inch test reservoir connected to the control line coupling. A trailer shall meet the above release time requirement with its brake system connected to the test rig shown in Fig. 1 and which meets the requirements of S5.3.3.1 and S5.3.3.2.

The above changes to Section S5.3.3 and Figure 1, and additions to S5.3.3.1 and S5.3.3.2 are recommended in an effort to more completely define the TRAILER TEST RIG. Until this rig is defined, uniform timing will not exist on trailers built to FMVSS 121. The original Figure 1 was designed to duplicate a tractor. It did this but as a test instrument it is inadequately defined. The air delivery performance of this device (as well as the tractors it was modeled from) will vary significantly. This is unacceptable when proof of vehicle compliance to the standard depends upon tests made with this unit. The proposed Figure 1 is a black box with narrowly defined performance characteristics. Devices built to this requirement will undoubtedly exhibit performance variations when tested against one another, but their level of consistency will far exceed that obtained by a unit in the standard which is only partly defined.

ID: nht87-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Darryl M. Burman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Darryl M. Burman, Esq. Messrs. Dotson, Babcock & Scofield 1200 InterFirst Plaza Houston, Texas 77002-5219

Re: Whether market and sale of headlamp covers are regulated by Federal law

Dear Mr. Burman:

This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1987, asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Your client wishes to import, market, distribute and sell a "cle ar, plastic headlamp cover...for all makes of cars manufactured in or imported to the United States." The stated safety purpose of the headlamp cover is "to protect the glass headlamps on automobiles from breaking."

Three methods of distribution are contemplated: direct sale by your client, sale through auto parts distribution centers, and sale as optional but uninstalled equipment at the time of the vehicle's original sale (the cover in its wrapping would be in the vehicle trunk). You state that the headlamp cover is not intended to be installed by your client, or its distributors and dealers, but will be accompanied by instructions so that the vehicle owner may install it. Warnings will be provided "about minimum Federal photometric requirements". You wish to know whether the headlamp cover is subject to Standard No. 108 or any other Federal regulation and, if so, the effect and impact of such regulation.

A plastic headlamp cover is "motor vehicle equipment", defined in pertinent part by Section 102(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1391(4)) as "any...accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle...." Its importer is a "manufac turer", defined in pertinent part by Section 102(5) of the Act as "any person importing...motor vehicle equipment for resale". As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment your client has the responsibility imposed by Sections 151 et seq of the Act to no tify and remedy in the event that either it or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists in the product, or that it fails to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have already noted that headlamp covers a re not "a regulated safety device" under Standard No. 108. A "defect" under Section 102(11) includes "any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials". Under the best of circumstances a plastic cover when new will reduce light output of a headlamp beneath its designer's intent, whether or not the output falls below the floor established by Standard No. 108 as a minimum for headlamp performance. In service, a plastic headlamp cover may contain condensation under certain climatic conditi ons, or grow increasingly opaque through exposure to ultraviolet rays or other atmospheric components, either of which would further affect the design performance of the headlamp. A conclusion could be reached that such a cover contained a safety related defect and that its importer should notify all purchasers and remedy according to the Act.

Safety problems associated with headlamp covers led to their prohibition when the headlamp is in use, initially under SAE J580 for sealed beam headlamps and later by its incorporation into Standard No. 108, for both sealed beam and replaceable bulb headl amps. The specific prohibition of J580 is why passenger cars are not manufactured with original equipment headlamp covers. Under Section 108(a)(l)(A) of the Act, if a dealer sells a noncomplying motor vehicle, he is in violation of the Act, and may be su bject to civil penalties for it. These penalties, under Section 109, range up to $1000 for a single violation, with a cumulative total of $800,000 for a related series of violations. If a dealer at time of sale provides the means through which a new car meeting all Federal safety standards may be rendered noncompliant immediately after its delivery, we would regard that as tantamount to his having sold a noncomplying motor vehicle in violation of the Act.

Although there is no Federal prohibition against a vehicle owner installing and using headlamp covers, there may nonetheless be local laws covering the sale and use of this equipment. We offer no views of your client's potential exposure under common law , in such situations as use of a deteriorated cover, or when used with a substandard replacement headlamp, except to note that photometric "warnings" may serve no defensive purpose. Photometric values at the individual test points are judged under labora tory conditions. Service facilities do not contain equipment by which on-vehicle compliance of the headlamp can be judged, and the eye is a subjective and unreliable source to discriminate between complying and noncomplying levels of light output.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 9, 1987

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington. DC 20590

Re: Letter ruling to determine if market and sale of headlamp covers are regulated by federal law

Dear Ms. Jones:

REQUEST FOR RULING

Our client is in the process of forming a Texas corporation (the "Company") to engage in those activities described below, and, on its behalf, we are requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Ass ociated Equipment ("Standard 108") and other related or applicable rules or regulations of the Department of Transportation. The reason for this request is the lack of specific guidance in determining (i) if the product our client will import, market and sell will be subject to such regulation, or any other federal regulation, and, (ii) if so, the effect and impact of such regulation. The product, which the Company intends to market, sell and distribute and for which the Company seeks approval by the Na tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), is a clear, plastic headlamp cover (the "Headlamp Cover") for all makes of cars manufactured in or imported to the United States.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Company proposes to engage in the importation and marketing of the Headlamp Cover, either through direct sales to ultimate consumers or through sales to automobile dealers, distributors and automotive parts distributors. The Headlamp Cover is designe d to protect the glass headlamps on automobiles from breaking. The Company, distributors, automotive dealers and others will not physically install the Headlamp Cover on automobiles. However, the Company does intend to provide warnings and instructions i n the packaging so that the owner of the vehicle may purchase the proper Headlamp Cover and safely install it.

The Company, proposes to distribute the Headlamp Cover in one or more of the following manners:

1. Over-the-counter. The Company wishes to market and distribute its Headlamp Cover to auto parts distributor centers for sale to the consumer. These distribution centers will be instructed not to participate in the installation of the Headlamp Cover.

2. Option offered by Dealer. The Company will sell and distribute the Headlamp Cover to automotive distributors and dealers who will offer them as accessories to purchasers of new automobiles. The automotive distributors or dealers will place the Headlam p Cover, in its original packaging, in the trunk of the automobile and will not install it for the consumer. Automotive distributors of imported automobiles will place the Headlamp Cover in trunks of automobiles at the port of arrival and list the Headla mp Cover on the price sticker as well as the invoice to the dealer.

3. Direct to consumer. The Company also desires to sell its Headlamp Cover directly to consumers, again, with no installation services offered.

CHRYSLER RULING

The Company is aware of a fairly recent denial of petition for rulemaking by the NHTSA regarding an attempt by Chrysler Corporation ("Chrysler") for an amendment to Standard 108 to allow Chrysler to offer removable transparent Headlamp Covers as original equipment on motor vehicles manufactured by Chrysler. It is our client's understanding that such petition was denied primarily because Chrysler's Headlamp Covers caused a reduction in light output between 7.2% and 15.5% and it was conceivable that certa in replacement headlamps purchased by consumers would produce an unacceptable light output when used in conjunction with the Chrysler Headlamp Cover.

The Company believes its proposed activities should be differentiated from those of Chrysler and should not be subject to federal regulation. The differences between the Company's proposal and Chrysler's proposal are: (i) the Company intends to market an d sell, but not manufacture and install, the Headlamp Cover, (ii) the Headlamp Cover is not a regulated safety device as defined in Standard No. 108, (iii) the Headlamp Cover will not be original equipment installed on an automobile at the time of purcha se and will not be installed by the Company. the distributor or the dealer, as prohibited by SAE J580 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly and (iv) the Headlamp Cover will not be marketed as a dealer installed option.

Additionally, the Chrysler ruling dealt specifically with the sealed beam headlamp assembly while the Company proposes to initially sell Headlamp Covers for the bulb and reflector type headlamp assembly found on many makes of cars sold in the United Stat es today.

However, similar to Chrysler, the Headlamp Cover, when used with original headlamps furnished by the manufacturers of the automobiles, will satisfy minimum federal photometric requirements.

CONCLUSION

The Company believes its activities should not be compared to those of Chrysler. It is aware that there may exist circumstances or possibilities where the Headlamp Cover may be misused, but intends to make information available to all parties who sell th e Headlamp Cover directly to consumers regarding photometric warnings. The product will also be packaged so that warnings are found on the exterior of the package to warn consumers about minimum federal photometric requirements. The interior of the packa ge will contain complete and accurate instructions for consumer installation of the Headlamp Cover.

The Company questions whether the Headlamp Cover or the contemplated activities of the Company, the distributors and dealers who will sell the Headlamp Cover, fall within federal regulated guidelines. Therefore,the Company hereby requests a ruling differ entiating its sale of the Headlamp Cover from Chrysler and permitting the Company. and the distributors and dealers to whom it sells the Headlamp Cover, to market and sell this product in accordance with the procedures discussed above.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and would be grateful for your prompt response.

If we can provide you with additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

Darryl M. Burman

ID: nht80-3.44

DATE: 08/29/80

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Aston Martin Lagonda (1975) Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I have in hand your letter of July 31, 1980, and regret to inform you that the vehicle identification number (VIN) scheme which you propose is apparently not in compliance with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115.

S4.5.2 and Table 1 of Standard No. 115 provide that the following information shall be decipherable from the five characters comprising the second section of the VIN for passenger cars: Line, Series, Body Type, Engine Type, Restraint System Type. A review of your Engineering Instructions and the accompanying drawings do not provide information concerning either the engine type or the restraint system type. Likewise, it is not clear whether your model designation is more appropriately characterized as line and/or series.

If the information omitted remains constant throughout a particular model, it will only be necessary for you to so state when deciphering your model code. For example, the following would be permissible:

Position 5 and 6: "V8" means V8 Volante model LHD, seat belt manual restraint system, V-8 engine with a displacement of 5.3 liters/326 cubic inches, a compression ratio of 8.3 and a net brake horsepower of .

We would also call to your attention that gross vehicle weight class is not required to be encoded in the VIN, although you are free to do so if you so choose.

Amongst the material furnished to the agency were drawings indicating the location of your confidential chassis identification number. As these are not required to be forwarded to the agency, I have taken the liberty of destroying them.

SINCERELY,

ENCLS.

ASTON MARTIN LAGONDA (1975) LIMITED

Frederic Schwartz Officer of the Chief Counsel, N.T.S.A.,

JULY 31, 1980

Dear Mr. Schwartz,

Vehicle Identification Numbering (17 characters)

Please find enclosed details upon which the Aston Martin Lagonda (1975) Ltd.

company has based its vehicle identification number (VIN) system, to be introduced with our 1981 model year cars.

The following documents have been enclosed to help clarify and explain the construction of the VIN system in detail:

(a) Construction drawings B97-16204/5/6 apply to Aston Martin V8 Saloon, Volante and Vantage (LHD) models respectively, B97-16224 applies to the Lagonda (LHD) (not currently certified in USA).

(b) Engineering Instruction number 205 gives a detailed explanation of the VIN construction. Engineering Instructions are sent to various departments within the Aston Martin organization and act as a reference and guide upon which work is carried out.

(c) Drawings A97-16226 and A97-16544 show the VIN plate designs and locations on the vehicle. The VIN is also stamped on the chassis member in characters with a minimum height of 7 mm (0.28 inches), Figures 1 and 2 in Engineering Instruction 205 show the location.

We have not sent details of our VIN system to anyone else, therefore we would appreciate your forwarding this letter and its contents to the relevant U.S. department, or advising accordingly.

KINDEST REGARDS,

R. Goldsmith Certification Engineer Safety and Emissions Department

ENGINEERING INSTRUCTION no. 205

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) Systems

1. INTRODUCTION

AML will soon be operating two distinct Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) systems, one system applying to cars sold to U.S.A. and Canada and the other system applying to cars sold elsewhere in the world.

2. U.S.A. AND CANADA VIN SYSTEM (NHTSA)

1981 and subsequent model year cars sold to U.S.A. and Canada are required to have a 17 (seventeen) character vehicle identification number assigned. This means a series of arabic numbers and roman letters assigned to each motor vehicle for identification purposes and shall be sans sarif type face with a minimum height of 4 mm.

The VIN shall appear clearly and indelibly (i.e. stamped) on:

(a) the vehicle certification label (i.e. the brass plate, part number A97-13074, fixed to left hand 'B' post), and

(b) the VIN label part number A97-16226 and fixed in the same manner and position as the superceded label, part number 071-50-0160, on the dashboard.

2.1 VIN Content and Structure The VIN content and structure is as follows:

STRUCTURE

RACTER POSITION

1)

2) Assigned by BSI

3)

4) Gross vehicle weight class. 'C' = 4001 to 5000 lbf 'D' = 5001 to 6000 lbf

5)

6) Model

7 Not used

8 Model variant

9 Check digit (see R.G.'s memo for detailed explanation)

10 Model Year. 'A' = 1980

11 Plant of manufacture. 'T' = Tickfords

12 Driving position. 'T' = (Illegible Words) A = 1 J = 1 T = 3 B = 2 K = 2 U = 4 C = 3 L = 3 V = 5 D = 4 M = 4 W = 6 E = 5 N = 5 X = 7 F = 6 P = 7 Y = 8 G = 7 R = 9 Z = 9 H = 8 S = 2

VIN: S C F C V 8 0 S A Assigned value: 2 3 6 3 5 8 0 2 0 1 Weight factor: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 10 0 9 Product: 16 21 36 15 20 24 0 20 0 9

2.1.1 World Manufacturers Identifier (WMI) Section

The WMI section is located in character positions 1 to 3 inclusive and is assigned by B.S.I. The code for all our models is SCF.

2.1.2 Vehicle Description Section (VDS)

The VDS is located in character positions 4 to 8 and is assigned by the manufacturer within the constraints laid down in the USA Federal Register, volume 44, number 57.

2.1.3 Vehicle Indicator Section (VIS)

The VIS is located in character positions 10 to 17 inclusive and is also assigned by the manufacturer within the constraints in the Federal Register.

2.1.4 The Check Digit

The check digit shall be determined and included in the VIN for each car sold to North America and Canada. It is determined by carrying out a mathematical computation that utilises each of the VIN characters according to the following formula:

(a) Each alphabetic character is assigned a numeric value according to the following table:

(b) The assigned value for each character is then multiplied by a weight factor that is dependent on VIN character position, see worked example below.

(c) The products are then added together and the sum divided by 11.

(d) The check digit is the remainder of the division, when this is 10 the check digit is X; when zero the check digit remains zero.

Worked example

VS Saloon (LHD) with assumed chassis number 12456 VIN: T L 1 2 4 5 6 Assigned value: 3 3 1 2 4 5 6 Weight factor: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Product: 24 21 6 10 16 15 12

Sum of products = 265, divide by 11 = 24 1/11

*Thus the check digit = 1 (to be inserted in ninth character of VIN)

2.1.4.1 Check Digit - Simplification

Because many of the VIN characters are common to each model the check digit

The scheme works thus:

(a) The Intermediate Check Digit remains constant for each model variant.

(b) Having allocated the sequential chassis number, multiply each digit by its weight factor and add these products to find the sum.

(c) Referring to Table 1(a), line-up the appropriate Sum and read across to the next column for the Sequential Number Check Digit (SCD).

(d) Next, refer to Table 1(b), and in the first column line-up the Sequential Number Check Digit, then line-up the Intermediate Check Digit; the point where the column and rows intercept is the corresponding VIN Check Digit.

(e) A worked example of the simplified Check Digit determination is shown below.

V8 SALOON APPROX. LHD

VIN Prefix Sequential Chassis No.

SCFCV80S ATL12678

4 3 2

Sum = 61 = 24+21+16

Sequential No. Check Digit = 6 [From Table 1(a)]

Intermediate Check Digit = 2

VIN Check Digit = 8 (Illegible Words)

(f) A summary of the Intermediate Check Digits for our model range is listed below: Model Driving Intermediate Instruction Drawing position Check Digit Number V8 Saloon Left HD 2 B97-16204 " Right HD 0 B97-16211 V8 Volante Left HD 5 B97-16205 " Right HD 3 B97-16212 V8 Vantage Left HD - B97-16206 " Right HD 8 B97-16213 Lagonda Left HD 4 B97-16224 " Right HD 2 B97-16225

* APPLICABLE (Illegible Words) VIZ (Illegible Words)

3. VIN SYSTEM - BEST OF THE WORLD (i.e. not applicable to USA or Canada)

The vehicle identification number (VIN) section on the brass plate, part numbers A97-15564/5 applicable to the Lagonda and V8 models respectively, will be completed by AML using the current sequential chassis numbering system. The plates will be embossed using stamps with a character of 4 mm minimum height. There will be no gaps or marks between the characters. The number will be finished with a dash, again without a gap, similar to the start of the number as shown in drawing A97-15564/5.

The chassis numbering (VIN) system is as follows:

(a) Lagonda : -LOOR13XXX-

(b) V8 Saloon : -V8SOR12XXX-

(c) V8 Volante : -V8COR15XXX- and (d) V8 Vantage : -V8VOR12XXX-

3.1 Lagonda VIN Structure Lagonda VIN Structure CHARACTER POSITION 1 -L Model 2 0 Not yet designated 3 0 Not yet designated, but J to be used for cars sold to Japan 4 R R = Right hand drive; L = Left hand drive 5 1) Chassis number model variant prefix 6 3) 7 X) 8 X) Sequential chassis number 9 X-

3.2 V8 VIN Structure V8 VIN STRUCTURE CHARACTER POSITION 1 -V) Model 2 8) 3 S,C or V Variant, i.e. S = Saloon; C = Convertible & V = Vantage 4 0 Not yet designated, but 'J' to be used for care sold to Japan 5 R or L R = Right hand drive; L = Left hand drive 6 I) Chassis number model variant prefix 7 2 or 5) 8 X) 9 X) Sequential chassis number 10 X-

3.3 Location of VIN Chassis Stamping

Bearing in mind the points outlined in 3. above, the VIN will also be stamped in the RHS of the chassis in the locations indicated in Figures 1 and 2 applicable to the Lagonda and V8 models respectively. The character heights shall be a minimum 7 mm high, and the number shall be legible when the car is completed and ready for sale, i.e. not covered by underseal.

APPROVED BY: S. COUGHLIN

PREPARED BY: A. GOLDSMITH

SAFETY & EMISSIONS: J. D. ORCHARD

Table 1

(a) Sequential No. Check Digit (SCD) Sum SCD Sum SCD Sum SCD 1 1 36 3 71 5 2 2 37 4 72 5 3 3 38 5 73 7 4 4 39 6 74 8 5 5 40 7 75 9 6 6 41 8 76 10 7 7 42 9 77 0 8 8 43 10 78 1 9 9 44 0 79 2 10 10 45 1 80 3 11 0 46 2 81 4 12 1 47 3 13 2 48 4 14 3 49 5 15 4 50 6 16 5 51 7 17 6 52 8 18 7 53 9 19 8 54 10 20 9 55 0 21 10 56 1 22 0 57 2 23 1 58 3 24 2 59 4 25 3 60 5 26 4 61 6 27 5 62 7 28 6 63 8 29 7 64 9 30 8 65 10 31 9 66 0 32 10 67 1 33 0 68 2 34 1 69 3 35 2 70 4

(b) VIN Check Digit

Intermediate Check Digit (Illegible Table)

ID: aiam3284

Dear Mr. Kneip: This is in response to your letter of May 7, 1980, in which you aske whether the proposed Nebraska certificate of title may be used as a substitute for the Federal odometer disclosure form required by 49 CFR Part 580.; The Nebraska title differs from the minimum Federal requirements i that there is no certification that the odometer reading reflects the actual mileage or the mileage over 99,999 miles, or is not the actual mileage. The buyer is not required to sign the Nebraska title as he is the Federal form (sic). In addition, your title does not refer to the legal consequences of a false disclosure. If you can make these additions, the Nebraska title will satisfy the Federal requirements.; For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the *Federal Register notice which discusses the short form odometer disclosure that States may use on their titles to satisfy Federal requirements, a letter to Maryland in which we indicate that formal approval by NHTSA is not necessary if the title contains the specified information, and sample titles that the NHTSA has approved.; If you need any further inforamtion, please do not hesitate to contac us.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel