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.

ID: nht78-3.48

DATE: 02/03/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Rhoda; Stoudt & Bradley

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 23, 1977, requesting clarification as to whether the modified Odometer Disclosure Form which you prepared would meet the Federal requirements. Specifically, you are requesting permission to inform the buyer of the vehicle that the mileage is unknown because the vehicle was subject to a commercial lease. It has been the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that if the seller does not know that the mileage indicated is wrong, he should not state that the mileage is unknown. More than mere lack of knowledge is necessary to check the mileage unknown box. The seller is not, however, precluded from adding a statement that the vehicle was subject to a commercial lease or otherwise outside of his control.

It appears from the form which you submitted that you are modifying the disclosure statement which is no longer to be used. The form was substantially changed, with those amendments to be effective as of January 1, 1978. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Federal Register notice of the amendments. Your client must certify to the accuracy of the odometer to the best of his or her knowledge under the amendments, however, as I stated before, he or she is free to add additional statements explaining the vehicle's history.

ID: nht78-3.49

DATE: 04/24/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Alliance of American Insurers

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 22, 1978, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interpret "primary place of business" under 49 CFR Part 580 to include regional offices and other places of business where companies' records are customarily maintained.

It is our opinion that "primary place of business" includes, in the case of a business with multiple offices, a regional or local office where transactions involving the subject vehicles took place and the records are maintained, in addition to the home office or headquarters of the business. For example, if a vehicle is repossessed by an insurance company that has its home office in New York, but the regional office in Chicago handled and retained all the paperwork on the repossessed vehicle, then the Chicago office would be the primary place of business for that transaction and the odometer disclosure statements should be retained in the Chicago office. The office that the purchaser dealt with would be the one he would contact if a problem arose at a later time. Therefore, it would be the logical office to maintain the records. If, however, the Chicago office handled the paperwork but upon completion forwarded it to the New York office, the New York office, as the repository for all paperwork, would be the primary place of business and odometer statements, like all other documents should be forwarded to that office. The place of retention, like the manner of retention, must be consistent so that systematic retrieval is possible.

ID: nht78-3.5

DATE: 02/22/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Asthi Glass Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your inquiry of January 23, 1978.

Speedometer covers on motorcycles are not subject to FMVSS No. 205.

ID: nht78-3.50

DATE: 03/14/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Rohm and Haas Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1978, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration review the draft of the form with which you propose to satisfy the Federal odometer requirements.

The form you are proposing to use differs from the Federal form in that the two sets of certifications are combined into an introductory certification with four exceptions. The regulations require the transferor to certify that the odometer reading reflects the actual mileage, reflects the mileage over 99,999 miles, or is not actual. Your form would allow a transferor to execute a disclosure statement without making any of the above certifications. The introductory statement says "if none of the exception block(s) below is checked, the Seller hereby certifies. . . ." Therefore, by checking the third or fourth box the transferor would be indicating that the exception applies but neither of the introductory statements applies. For this reason we cannot give our approval to use this form as the Federal disclosure form.

ID: nht78-3.6

DATE: 09/07/78

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

TO: Motorcycle Trades Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the "edge treatment" requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, as they would apply to rigid or flexible plastics to be used for windshields on motorcycles. You asked for confirmation that one-piece plastics are required to meet the edge treatment requirements set forth in the standard for non-laminated glass.

The edge treatment requirements of Standard No. 205 are specified in paragraph S5.2, which incorporates by reference the SAE Recommended Practice J673a, "Automotive Glazing," August 1967. The SAE Practice specifies different requirements for "tempered" and "laminated" safety glass. The agency interprets the distinctions to apply equally to plastics. Therefore, one-piece plastic materials must meet the edge treatment requirements specified for "tempered" glazing, and laminated plastics must meet the requirements specified for "laminated" glazing.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Motorcycle Trades Association, Inc.

June 13, 1978

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: FMVSS No. 205 Paragraph S 5.2

In the above-mentioned section, edges of glazing materials (except in school buses) that are exposed must meet the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J673a, August 1967.

The usual practice in the motorcycle industry is to use rigid or flexible plastics for windscreens and windshields for motorcycles. In most cases, these plastics meet the requirements of the ANSI Z26 standard in full; occasionally, these materials may use the (Illegible Word) from the chemical tests in Z26 when used in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

SAE J673a in virtually all of its wording speaks specifically of "Safety glass" and the edge treatment requirements differ for "tempered" and "laminated" materials. Please confirm for us that one-piece (that is, non-laminated) plastics materials are required to meet the edge treatment requirements set forth for non-laminated glass in the SAE standard.

Thank you for your assistance,

Bruce Henderson Vice-President, MTA

ID: nht78-3.7

DATE: 01/26/78

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

TO: Oklahoma Department of Public Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 9, 1977, asking whether the recent amendment of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, permits the use of plastic glazing in school buses.

The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 205, as amended December 5, 1977 (42 FR 61465), allows the use of rigid plastic glazing in doors and windows of all buses, including school buses. Please note, however, that plastics cannot be used for bus windshields or in doors or windows to the immediate right or left of the driver.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Oklahoma Department of Public Safety

December 9, 1977

Hugh Oates -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Oates:

RE: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205 as amended by the Federal Register Docket #71-1, Notice #6, published 12-5-77

On December 5, 1977, a notice was published in the Federal Register amending Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205, glazing material, which added to the list specified in ANS Z26, items 4 and 5 allowing the use of plastics in the side windows of buses. My question is, does this also include the use of items 4 and 5 of the ANS Z26 Standard in school buses.

Sincerely,

Joe Wall, Asst. Director -- Vehicle Inspection Division

ID: nht78-3.8

DATE: 05/12/78

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

TO: Susan H. Soodek

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Federal Safety Standard No. 205 specifies requirements limiting the reflectivity of glazing materials. You are concerned with the lack of uniformity in state laws that prohibit nontransparent or reflective windows in motor vehicles.

The stated purpose of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, is to reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions. The standard does not prohibit reflective glazing, nor does it specify requirements that would limit the degree of reflectivity of glazing materials.

Since reflectivity is not an aspect of performance governed by Federal safety standards, state laws concerning glazing reflectance would not be preempted by Standard No. 205. Safety Standard No. 205 does, however, specify requirements for the luminous transmittance of glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Therefore, state laws prohibiting nontransparent windows would be preempted if they attempted to regulate the glazing manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). State regulations applicable to the vehicle owner or user would not be preempted, on the other hand, since the Federal regulation is only applicable to the manufacturer. Therefore, a state law could prohibit the application of a nontransparent decal on a window by a vehicle owner, for example.

I am enclosing a copy of the California Highway Patrol petition for rulemaking regarding glazing abrasion requirements and glazing reflectivity. A notice concerning this petition will be issued at some time in the near future.

I must point out that our statutory authority requires all safety standards to be reasonable, objective and to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. The agency cannot, therefore, regulate an aspect of motor vehicle performance or design if there is no data or evidence indicating that a safety problem exists.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & ACCESSORIES ASSOCIATION

March 30, 1978

Joseph Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Levin:

This letter is to request a formal interpretation of FMVSS #205, Glazing Materials, as to the permissibility of reflective material. In addition, we have posed specific questions under #205 regarding federal jurisdiction and applicability of the Standard. Our desire is to prevent the possible emergence of fifty varying state laws governing reflectance.

May we provide an explanation of our interest, and previous communication with the NHTSA on the subject.

APAA is a national trade association representing nearly 1400 manufacturers, retailers, wholesale distributors, and independent sales agents doing business in the volume aftermarket industry. Among our members are manufacturers of a variety of window covering materials, including screens, reflective materials, and tinted materials.

As a service to these manufacturers and our retailers, we attempt to keep abreast of state laws bearing upon the sale and use of various window covering materials. The following states have enacted regulations prohibiting nontransparent or reflective windows: Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio, Utah, and Virginia. The states of California and Pennsylvania are considering the same. Lesser restrictions exist in Maryland, New Mexico, and Texas. With only two exceptions, the terms "nontransparent" and "reflective" are undefined and enforcement is left to the judgement of police, the Highway Patrol, or an inspection official. (See enclosed APAA prepared summary bulletin). This lack of definition has resulted in violations for windows which actually complied with federal visibility requirements as defined by ANSI Z26.

Yet, some of the states have demanded recall of reflective windows, the related costs and logistical problems of which severely disrupt interstate commerce and can drive a small manufacturer out of business. Uniformity, through federal preemption, would allow our manufacturers to comply in "good faith" with reflectance requirements.

On March 13, Mr. Guy Hunter (engineer) and Mr. Hugh Oates (legal adviser) to FMVSS # 205 met with Mr. Russ Simmons of West Custom Windows, an APAA-member company, Mr. Julian C. Morris, APAA President, and myself to discuss the association's request for an amendment to the standard to address reflectance levels.

We were advised the NHTSA may be considering the reflectance issue in response to a petition filed last year by the California Highway Patrol. May we be furnished with a copy of the CHP's petition and be apprised of rulemaking status?

Presumably, the Administration has not previously addressed reflectivity in FMVSS #205 because reflective windows have not created an established safety hazard. However, could not an amendment be made on the basis of benefits in safety from filtering out glare or benefits in fuel economy from the insulation properties of reflective material? What type of data is acceptable to demonstrate that establishing an acceptable percentage reflectance level would result in safety and fuel economy benefits?

A legal opinion from your office would provide clarification that the federal standard does not prohibit reflective material. The crux of the problem, it would appear, lies in applicability of FMVSS #205. At the March 13 meeting at NHTSA headquarters, staff advised us that the standard applies to the vehicle manufacturer, not the motorist. Are the states then on sound legal ground to regulate the vehicle owner, even a state's interpretation of "nontransparency" is stricter than the visibility definition incorporated by #205?

Your response to these questions will, hopefully, provide reasonable guidelines for dealing with the existing ambiguities.

Susan H. Soodek Assistant Director, Government Affairs & Liaison

[ENC. OMITTED]