ID: nht78-3.39

DATE: 12/26/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Dominic S. Piacenza

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 9, 1978, asking whether a memorandum of understanding exists between the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the apparent overlapping jurisdiction regarding tire marketing practices created by Section 203 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1423). You ask whether NHTSA's jurisdiction extends solely to safety-related issues.

NHTSA's authority is not confined solely to the area of motor vehicle and traffic safety. For example, under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901) the agency has been given authority over the areas of fuel economy and economic losses to consumers as they relate to automobiles. While the Safety Act is primarily concerned with safety issues, Section 203 of that law does provide NHTSA with limited authority over tire marketing practices. The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR 575.104), issued by NHTSA under the authority of Section 203, provide information to consumers in tire performance areas relating to both safety and economic issues.

While the FTC is aware of and supports NHTSA's efforts in the field of tire grading, no memorandum of understanding exists with regard to the scope of NHTSA's activities. Section 205 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1425) does state that, in the event of conflict between orders or regulations issued under the Safety Act concerning motor vehicle tires and FTC orders or interpretations, the orders or regulations issued under the Safety Act shall prevail.

ID: nht78-3.4

DATE: 04/13/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Cars & Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 16, 1978, asking whether the certification markings required on glazing materials by Safety Standard No. 205 must remain visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle after installation.

The answer to your question is no. There is nothing in the certification requirements of section S6 of Standard No. 205 that requires the markings to remain visible after installation on the vehicle. As long as the glazing manufacturer has certified and marked his glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as these markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer there is no prohibition against covering the markings.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Cars & Concepts, Inc.

February 16, 1978

Mr. Oats -- Office of Chief Council, N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Oats:

Regarding your conversations with Ed Myjack of my office, it is his understanding that the Department of Transportation markings on glass need not be visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle (providing the original manufacturer's marking do remain on the glass).

As we provide vinyl top design and installations on some OEM vehicles, some of the designs may cover these markings on the quarter glass and/or backlights.

Since we provide these type of installations to the OEM, they require written proof that such modifications are within the requirements of FMVSS No. 205.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Moe Pare, Jr. -- Director of Design

cc: D. Draper; E. Myjack

ID: nht78-3.40

DATE: 08/30/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Utah State Tax Commission

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 10, 1978, requesting approval to use Utah's proposed Certificate of Title as a substitute for the Federal odometer disclosure form required by 49 CFR Part 580.

The proposed Certificate of Title which you enclosed with your letter differs from the Federal odometer disclosure form in the following ways:

(1) The Utah Certificate of Title contains no reference to State or Federal law;

(2) the set of certifications relating to the distance the vehicle has travelled are shortened by adopting the format recommended by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators;

(3) the certifications relating to alteration of the odometer are deleted; and

(4) the transferee is not required to sign the statement.

The only suggestions that we have are that you include a reference to either State or Federal law and the signature of the transferee (buyer). The purpose of the reference to the law is to alert the purchaser to the fact that the odometer information is a legal requirement, the violation of which is punishable. The purpose of the transferee's signature is to ensure that he or she has seen the disclosure statement and to prevent him or her from later claiming that no statement was received. With these changes Utah's Certificate of Title will be in substantive conformity with the Federal odometer law, despite its differences from the Federal form. Therefore, pursuant to 49 CFR 580.4(f)(2), I hereby grant your request to use Utah's Certificate of Title, with the changes noted above, as a substitute for the Federal form.

ID: nht78-3.41

DATE: 02/02/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Minnesota Department of Public Safety

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 15, 1977, requesting an exemption from the Federal odometer disclosure regulations which will become effective as of January 1, 1978.

We appreciate the efforts of Minnesota to include odometer information on its certificates of title. However, we are not granting any exemptions for States which have not previously had odometer information on their titles. Since the citizens of your State have had to execute separate odometer disclosure statements in the past they will not be placed under any additional burden by this ruling. They will merely continue past practices until such time as Minnesota incorporates the revised odometer format on their titles.

ID: nht78-3.42

DATE: 11/14/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: McClintock Donovan Carson & Roach

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 1, 1978, requesting information on the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. You specifically asked what a lessor's responsibility is with regard to the certifications on the disclosure statement. The lessor, as transferor of a vehicle, is required to certify, to the best of his knowledge, as to the accuracy of the vehicle's odometer. A lessor should assume that an odometer is accurate unless he has reason to believe otherwise. Any reasonable belief that the odometer is wrong should be reflected on the disclosure statement by checking, in the first set of certifications, either box 2 or 3, as appropriate. In situations where the lessor has no knowledge as to the accuracy of the odometer reading, he should not state that the mileage is in error because to the best of his knowledge it is correct.

With regard to the second set of certifications, the lessor should check box 1 unless he altered or knows that the lessee or some other person altered the odometer. Since your client is concerned about the possibility that the lessee may alter the odometer, he may find it advisable to protect himself by requiring the lessee to indemnify him in the event of liability under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. He may also add a statement on the disclosure form that the vehicle was subject to a lease or was otherwise outside of his control.

ID: nht78-3.43

DATE: 06/21/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Mellon Bank

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your recent telephone conversation with Kathy DeMeter of my staff concerning the retention of odometer disclosure statements. The question you raised was in what order the statements should be retained. The two methods you proposed using were alphabetically by the name of the individual or organization to which you transferred to the vehicle. 49 CFR requires each dealer or distributor of a motor vehicle to retain the statements "in an order that is appropriate to his business requirements and that permits systematic retrieval."

Either method you propose would probably permit systematic retrieval and you may therefore select the method which best suits your business requirements.

ID: nht78-3.44

DATE: 06/28/78

FROM: John Womack; NHTSA

TO: McMullen & Porter

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 6, 1978, requesting an interpretation of the Feeral odometer disclosure requirements. The question you raised was whether the owner of a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of 64,000 pounds is required under Federal regulations to issue an odometer disclosure statement to the purchaser of the truck. 49 CFR @580.4, Disclosure of odometer information, requires each transferor of a motor vehicle to furnish to the transferee a written disclosure statement. 49 CFR@580.5 (a) (1), however, exempts a transferor of a vehicle having a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 16,000 pounds from having to fulfill the requirements of @580.4

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in promulgating these regulations added this exemption section because buses and large trucks are routinely driven hundreds of thousands of miles, and their maintenance records, not their odometers, have traditionally been relied on by buyers as the principal guide to their condition. It is, therefore, the interpretation of the NHTSA that in the situation you describe in your letter, no disclosure statement was required to be issued under the Federal regulations.

ID: nht78-3.45

DATE: 11/01/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: State Capitol; West Virginia

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your telephone conversation with Kathy DeMeter of my staff on October 11, 1978, concerning the Federal odometer law. You requested an interpretation of the first sentence in 49 CFR @ 580.7, which reads as follows:

Each dealer or distributor of a motor vehicle who is required by this Part to execute an odometer disclosure statement shall retain for four years each odometer mileage statement which he receives.

Specifically, you asked whether dealers and distributors are required to retain only those disclosure statements which they actually receive or whether they are under an affirmative duty to obtain a disclosure statement if none is offered by the transferor.

In the opinion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1988) creates an affirmative duty on the part of dealers and distributors to obtain disclosure statements. Section 408 states that:

No transferee who, for purposes of resale, acquires ownership of a motor vehicle shall accept any written disclosure required by any rule prescribed under this section if such disclosure is complete.

Part 580 of 49 CFR requires such written disclosure. If a disclosure statement, as required by Part 580, is provided to the transferee but is not filled out in its entirety, then the disclosure of the mileage the vehicle has been driven is not complete. Likewise, if no information at all is provided as to the mileage, then the disclosure is also incomplete. Therefore, in order for a dealer or distributor to be in compliance with section 408 of the Act, he must take steps to ensure that he receives a written disclosure and that it is complete in all respects prior to executing the transfer of ownership documents.

Part 580.7 of 49 CFR merely requires that those statements which the dealer or distributor is required to obtain are retained.

ID: nht78-3.46

DATE: 07/31/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Maryland Independent Automobile Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This to confirm your telephone conversation with Kathy DeMeter of my staff concerning the Federal odometer disclosure requirements imposed on dealers and distributors. Part 580 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires that each transfer of a motor vehicle be accompanied by an odometer disclosure statement and that dealers and distributors retain for four years copies of statements which they issue and which they receive. In States that have incorporated the Federal statement into their certificates of title the dealer need not execute a separate Federal form. He must, nevertheless, retain a copy of whichever statement he completes. If, for example, he discloses the mileage solely by means of the statement on the certificate of title, he must make a copy of the title for his own records. He may also issue a separate statement to the purchaser and retain a copy of that statement for his records.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the law, the regulations issued under it and several interpretations and pamphlets. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

ID: nht78-3.47

DATE: 04/19/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Cary C. Boyden

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 22, 1978, concerning the Federal odometer requirements.

The question you raised was whether the lessor can leave the transferee's name and address on the odometer disclosure statement blank in cases where the transferee is a bank who has not yet determined whether the vehicle will be leased or the subject of a secured lending arrangement.

As defined in 49 CFR @ 580.3, "Transferee" means "any person to whom the ownership in a motor vehicle is transferred by purchase, gift, or any means other than by creation of a security interest." Therefore, if the bank is taking possession of the vehicle in order to lease it, the lessor should indicate that the bank is the transferee. If the bank is taking possession of the vehicle in order to make it the subject of a secured lending arrangement, the bank's customer, and not the bank, should appear on the disclosure statement as transferee.

You indicated that additional paper work would result if the bank were required to be listed as the transferee in both of the above situations until it decided how to dispose of the vehicle. As a result, you suggested that it be acceptable to list as transferee the bank or its customer as their respective interest may appear. You stated that "this alternative would allow the bank either to retain the statement on its own behalf or to forward the disclosures to the ultimate debtor at the time it is determined to consummate the transaction as a secured loan rather than a lease."

It is our opinion that your proposed alternative is acceptable under 49 CFR Part 580, so long as the bank transmits the disclosure to the transferee. The lessor, as transferor, would be responsible for furnishing the transferee with the statement. Should the bank fail to transmit the statement, the lessor could be held responsible for the bank's negligence.