ID: nht73-5.38

DATE: 10/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bankers Trust Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1973, which asks whether a bank must make an odometer disclosure statement upon transfer to an auctioneer of a repossessed vehicle in which the bank has only a security interest.

To the extent that the bank is acting in the place of the repossessed owner, and in the absence of any other party available to make a statement, it is our opinion that the bank is acting as transferor and should make the disclosure specified in Part 580. Normally the bank does not know that the odometer is inaccurate and should only fill in the blank with the recorded mileage. The bank could authorize its collection agency to actually make the disclosure.

ID: nht73-5.39

DATE: 11/01/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Adaline R. Crocker

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your question about possible violations of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act by an owner who sells his vehicles without knowing for sure if the odometer reading is accurate.

The Act and implementing regulation require you to state the recorded mileage on the odometer, and tell your buyer if you know that the recorded mileage is wrong. It appears from your letter that you have some reason to suspect the validity of the present reading. If on the basis of the facts available to you, you conclude that the reading is probably wrong, you should caution your buyer by indicating on the odometer mileage statement that the true mileage is unknown.

ID: nht73-5.4

DATE: 09/12/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wesley Wells

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 10, 1973, concerning your purchase of a 1973 truck from Haag Motors which was sold as new but had an odometer reading of 1,125 miles at the time of sale. I apologize for our delay in replying.

The sale of a vehicle as new with an odometer reading of 1,125 miles does not violate Federal law, although it may violate a consumer protection statute in your state or the state of purchase. There is, however, a Federal law which requires sellers of motor vehicles to make an odometer disclosure statement at the time of sale. If you purchased the truck after March 1, 1973, and its gross vehicle weight rating does not exceed 16,000 pounds, you may have a private civil action against the dealer for $ 1,500 or treble damages, if he failed to execute the written statement.

You may wish to consult an attorney with regards to your rights in this matter. A copy of the Act and implementing regulations are enclosed for your information.

ENCLS.

ID: nht73-5.40

DATE: 11/01/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Joan Norton

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I appreciate your taking the time to bring to our attention possible odometer tampering by Southside American, Inc., of Jacksonville, Florida.

The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act prohibits odometer tampering and provides a remedy in the form of a civil action to be brought by a defrauded party. If it's possible to find the person who bought the car - a search that will probably require the assistance of the state motor vehicle department - he should be advised of the apparent error in the odometer. If he decides to pursue his remedy under the Act, he may have to rely heavily on your testimony, particularly if the oil sticker has been removed.

Although a private civil action is the principal remedy under the Act, the Federal government has auxiliary authority to enjoin violations of the Act. You can assist us in the exercise of this authority by forwarding the enclosed copy of this letter to your local consumer affairs office. If they encounter additional instances of apparent violation by Southside, or by other dealers, we could consider the possibility of seeking an injunction.

ENC.

ID: nht73-5.41

DATE: 11/02/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Green Bus Lines, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of July 30 and August 21, 1973, concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, for materials used in windshields.

(Illegible Word) understand and share your concern over the damage and the hazards caused by vandalism toward buses. Standard No. 205 currently prohibits the use of plastics in windshields simply because today's commercial plastics, including the one for which you enclosed a brochure, cannot meet the abrasion resistance test specified in the standard. As long as windshield wipers are used, we are of the opinion that this requirement is essential. We hope that glazing manufacturers will develop materials that will protect against the problems you have described, while at the same time meeting the necessary performance requirements. When such materials are developed, we, of course, would amend the standard as necessary to permit their use.

ID: nht73-5.42

DATE: 11/02/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Porsche

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 2, 1973, to Mr. James Hofferberth of my staff, inquiring if a particular safety belt system which is illustrated in your enclosures meets the criteria for a passive restraint system.

The interpretation of a passive restraint system published in the Federal Register on May 4, 1971 (36 F.R. 8296) was:

"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."

With respect to your belt system, a requirement for placing the belt in the storage holder when leaving the car would be considered "action" and not permitted under the above interpretation of a passive system. However, if the belt system could be entered and exited with essentially no action, in the event the storage holder was not used, automatically releasing "convenience" holder would not compromise the belt's qualification as a passive system.

SINCERELY,

Jim Hofferberth NHTSA

9/2/73

Dear Mr Hofferberth.

This is in ref. to our tel. conversation of last week re passive restraint system. The picture are self explanatory, and show the sequence of locking and unlocking. Would you please let me know if this meets the standard or if any changes are needed.

Very truly yours Kurt Meier

ID: nht73-5.43

DATE: 11/05/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Gerald Ahronheim

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request for a statement of your odometer disclosure obligations under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, Public Law 92-513.

Under the Act, all transferors must make a "mileage statement" to the transferee. "Transferor" means any person who transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any means other than by creation of a security interest. This includes a dealer transferring a new or used vehicle. The only exceptions to the requirement are for vehicles over 16,000 pounds gross weight rating, non-self-propelled vehicles, vehicles 25 years old or older, and new vehicles sold by a dealer to another dealer for resale.

The statement must contain (1) the odometer reading, (2) date of transfer, (3) transferor's name and current address, (4) vehicle identification or serial number, make, model, year, body type, last plate number, (5) a statement that actual mileage differs from recorded mileage if such is the case and the transferor knows it, and (6) reference to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act with the statement that incorrect information may result in civil liability under it. An example of an adequate statement and format is enclosed for your information.

The federal government does not print these forms but several commercial printers have prepared Federal disclosure forms for the convenience of dealers. Alternatively, the statement

may be included in the bill of sale, or other transfer document. In any case, it must be completed and signed prior to the transfer. Either the original or carbon copy may go to the transferee. You can see that the transferor must make a statement about actual mileage only if he knows that it differs from recorded mileage. A person like yourself who has no knowledge of odometer accuracy would only state the recorded mileage.

A copy of the Act is also enclosed for your information.

ENCLS.

October 9, 1973

Dear NHTSA

This note is prompted by Sylvia Porter's column which appeared in the Detroit Free Press of Wednesday, October 10 1973 (page 6-C) concerning the 1972 Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

As one who has owned several previous-owned cars and who doesn't anticipate purchasing any new car in the near future, I am concerned about possibly unwittingly violating the 1972 act, of which I was not previously aware. For example, I have sold two cars which I had bought used in the past 13 months, and now am driving a 1951 automobile which may follow its predecessors. How can I guarantee the mileage of these cars? I can't attest to the honesty of the previous owners, and even though both cars were purchased in earlier times I have no way of verifying anything which could have been tampered with. Does the Act protect a seller from unwittingly becoming liable for omissions or commissions of others?

What is the document -- "Disclosure Statement" -- referred to by Ms. Porter? Is this a standard form, an amendment to a bill-of-sale, or anything in a contractual form? Where are these documents to be obtained, and who must complete them? Must one be furnished with every vehicle sale (e.g. motorcycle, bicycle, ORRV) and by any seller (private individual vs. dealer)?

I'd be very grateful for official answers to these questions specifically, as well as for a copy of the Act and any information booklet you may have printed. Thank you very much.

Respectfully,

Gerald Ahronheim

ID: nht73-5.44

DATE: 11/05/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Roy Stolpestad

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1973, concerning the 1966 Chrysler you recently purchased from Central Motors in Minneapolis. As Miss Porter correctly pointed out in her column, the Federal law on odometer fraud enables you to bring a civil action against Central. The amount of recovery in such an action can be substantial. If the court were to accept your estimate of damages of $ 1490.24, the damages assessable under Federal law would be three times that amount $ 4470.72. In no case would damages be less than $ 1500, a minimum value established by law. In addition, if you are successful, Central must pay your attorney fees as well as all court costs.

I appreciate your concern for the costs of litigation. However, by providing for the payment of attorney fees the odometer law places you in a better position than a personal injury litigant whose recovery is usually diminished by his attorney's contingency fee. Your best course at this point is therefore to retain counsel if Central persists in its refusal to reimburse you.

By way of advice to your attorney, I would point out that the "out" that Central claims to have taken -- checking the box on the disclosure form that indicates the true mileage is unknown -- was taken too late to be of benefit to them. The Federal regulation governing disclosure requires the disclosure statement to be made "before executing any transfer of ownership form." If they mailed the statement the next day, their disclosure was untimely. Moreover, the representations made in the newspaper advertisment are evidentiary of their representation of 33,000 miles as being the true mileage on the vehicle. Your success in finding the previous

owner is also useful in establishing that the actual mileage was greater than shown.

We will be willing to give you or your attorney further advice if questions arise concerning the intent and effect of the Federal odometer law. The enclosed copies of the law and regulations are provided to assist him in representing you.

ENC.

ID: nht73-5.45

DATE: 11/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: R. H. Schroeter

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 1973, in which you ask the following questions:

1. Is it true that Standard Nos. 109 and 110 are not applicable to a 1/2-ton pickup truck with camper because such vehicle is not a "passenger car" as defined in Standards 109 and 110?

2. Is it true that in Appendix A of Standard 110 no "alternative rims" are listed for the L70-15 tire simply because no one has requested (in the manner provided in Appendix A to Standard 110) inclusion of such additional or alternative rim widths.

With respect to question 1, a pickup truck is not a passenger car but a "truck" (as defined in 49 CFR S 671.3) for purposes of all the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard Nos. 109 and 110. Standard No. 109 applies to tires for passenger cars. Standard No. 110 (49 CFR S 571.110) applies only to passenger cars, not to pickup trucks.

In response to your second question, the answer is not an unequivocal "yes", and I regret that you may have drawn that conclusion from your conversations with Michael Peskos of this office. In order for alternative rims to be listed with a tire size designation in the Appendix of Standard No. 110, data showing that the tire and rim combination meets the requirements of both

Standard No. 109 and 110 must first be submitted to the agency. Once that data has been provided, the NHTSA will publish the alternative rim size in Standard No. 110, and if no objections are received within a 30-day period, the tire/rim combination becomes part of the standard. Thus, there are not one but two possible reasons why a rim size is not listed in Standard No. 110:

The tire/rim combination fails to meet either Standard No. 109 or 110; or

It does meet both standards, but no one has requested approval of the combination. This could occur simply if the combination was not intended to be used as original equipment on a passenger car.

ID: nht73-5.46

DATE: 10/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Paulson and Humphreys

COPYEE: MR. PESCOE; MR. HELLMUTH

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your communication of September 20, 1973, requesting our review of a sample owner notification letter, regarding a safety related defect in certain Apache Camping Trailers, for purposes of conformity to 49 CFR Part 577, Defect Notification.

We believe the reference in the first sentence of the second paragraph, that a defect may exist, to be inconsistent with the regulation. This statement is apparently intended to meet the requirement of Section 577.4(b). This subsection, however, requires a particular statement and does not permit the use of "many" or similar expression. The statement required is not solely one of fact, but rather one of law, and the opening sentence of Section 577.4(b) shows clearly that the statement is required where the defect potentially exists in the vehicles or equipment in question. We also believe your references in other parts of the letter to "possible defect" suffer from the same deficiency.

In other respects, we believe your notification letter conforms to Part 577.