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.

ID: nht73-5.47

DATE: 10/02/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

COPYEE: D. FAY; M. P. PESKOE

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 23, 1973, forwarding to us correspondence from Mr. G. H. Nichols, President, Midwestern Products, Incorporated, Tulsa, concerning the applicability of Federal regulations to an air suspension auxiliary axle manufactured by Midwestern Products. According to the manufacturer's advertising brochure, this axle, the "Micro-Air Retractable Safety Axle, is intended to be used on pick-up and bobtail trucks, particularly in the recreational vehicle and related fields.

There are presently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations that apply to the manufacture of these axles. However, persons who install them on new pick-up trucks or other vehicle types (a "new" vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is one that has not yet been sold to a user) may be considered as vehicle alterers under provisions of NHTSA Certification regulations which are to become effective February 1, 1974 (Docket No. 72-27; copy enclosed), and would be required to affix to the vehicle the label described in section 567.7 of those regulations.

Midwestern Products should be aware of these requirements whether it installs the Micro-Air axle or whether the installation is done by other parties. In the former case Midwestern would be responsible for affixing the required label, and in the latter it should provide the relevant information for the label regarding weight ratings to the party making the installation.

The NHTSA does not maintain a mailing list to provide copies of NHTSA notices and regulations. Copies are

available as indicated on the enclosed sheet, "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

We are pleased to be of assistance.

2 ENCLS.

ID: nht73-5.48

DATE: 10/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A. G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

COPYEE: PHILIP A. HUTCHINSON; MR. PESKOE; MRS. MURRAY

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to the letter you propose to send to owners of vehicles involved in Defect Notification Campaign 73-0196. (Audi 80, 1973 Model, Backing Plate on Rear Axle.)

In our opinion this letter does not comply with the Defect Notification Regulation (49 CFR Part 577). Our reasons are as follows. While the letter refers to components involved in the defect (section 577.4(c) (1)), it does not describe the malfunction of which the owner must be informed pursuant to section 577.4(c)(2). Nor does the letter include a statement of conditions (operating or otherwise) that may cause the malfunction to occur, as required by section 577.4(c)(3). While the letter refers to a "shimmy," we cannot reasonably construe this to describe any more than the warning which the owner may experience (section 577.4(d)(1)(ii)). Moreover, we find your instruction to operate the vehicle at "substantially reduced speed," if intended to be the precautionary statement required by section 577.4(c)(4), to be so broad as to be meaningless. We believe a statement of the maximum speed at which the vehicle should be operated would be more appropriate.

The letter fails to evaluate completely the risk to traffic safety in the manner specified in section 577.4(d). In our view, when this failure is combined with the failure to describe the malfunction, the recipient of your notification is left with almost no idea of the nature

of the problem with his vehicle. We find further your statement that repair parts will be at the dealers "shortly" to be too general to conform to section 577.4(e)(1)(iii). That section clearly requires an estimate of the day on which parts will be available. Its purpose is to prevent the making of general statements such as that in your letter.

Finally, your letter urges the owner to take the vehicle to his dealer "immediately" only if he experiences "rear-end shimmy." In our view, this statement implies that without shimmy there does not exist a serious safety problem with the vehicle. Such an implication contravenes section 577.6, "Disclaimers," and must be deleted.

In order to conform to Part 577, your notification letter must be revised as indicated in this letter.