ID: nht79-1.23

DATE: 09/20/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 20 1979

Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your August 30, 1979, letter asking how to comply with Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. That regulation states, in part, that a manufacturer may choose as the date of manufacture of a vehicle, the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of manufacture of the final vehicle, or any date between those two dates. You ask whether this choice is available to manufacturers that manufacture both the incomplete vehicle and the final-stage vehicle. The answer to your question is no.

As you noted in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued an interpretation in 1974 stating that manufacturers of both incomplete and final-stage vehicles could not choose the date of manufacture of their completed vehicles. Those manufacturers must use only the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle.

The 1974 interpretation stated that manufacturers of both incomplete and final-stage vehicles do not need a choice of manufacture dates. That choice is only appropriate when a manufacturer of a completed vehicle does not have control over the manufacture of the incomplete vehicle. In such cases, a final-stage manufacturer might order an incomplete vehicle which would be constructed prior to the effective date of new safety standards but received after the effective date of such standards. If the incomplete vehicle were not in compliance with the new standards, it might be impossible for the final-stage manufacturer to use it in the construction of a completed vehicle. When a manufacturer is in complete control of both units, however, it can ensure that the incomplete vehicle will comply with the appropriate safety standards that will be in effect on the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle.

Our 1974 interpretation stated that the certification requirements would change as a result of the Rex Chainbelt decision. As you are aware, the agency significantly modified its regulations in accordance with that decision. However, the sections relating to the date of manufacture of a vehicle were not changed. Accordingly, our 1974 interpretation of those sections limiting the choice of dates of manufacture for a manufacturer that produce all stages of a vehicle remains in effect.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 30, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Ref: N40-30 (MPP) dated February 26, 1974; copy attached for easy reference.

Dear Mr. Berndt,

The referenced letter indicates that as manufacturers of chassis and bodies (incomplete and complete vehicles) we cannot use the Part 568 certification scheme for two stage manufacturers. However, the letter goes on to say that the Rex Chainbelt case may have an impact on this.

Our question is this. Now that the Rex Chainbelt case is settled, do we now have a choice of either the Part 567 or Part 568 certification schemes or must we continue to use the Part 567 scheme as expressed in the referenced letter?

Thank you for your early reply.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

oct

enclosure In reply refer to: N40-30 (MPP)

Mr. W. G. Milby Project Manager Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This is in reply to your letter of December 19, 1973, asking whether Blue Bird may use the manufacturing date of incomplete vehicles it manufactures, to be completed at a later time, as the date by which conformity to applicable safety standards is to be determined. You indicate that Blue Bird manufactures both incomplete and complete vehicles.

The Certification and Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulations (49 CFR Parts, 567, 568) allow only final-stage manufacturers to certify conformity to applicable standards as of the manufacture date of an "incomplete vehicle." A person who manufactures the Entire vehicle, including the chassis, is not a final-stage manufacturer within the intent of the regulation, and such a vehicle must be certified as of the date of its completion.

Part 568 clearly intends that multistage vehicles will be manufactured by more than one party. As your letter points out, the documentation required by Part 568 is unnecessary when only one manufacturer is involved. Moreover, the justification in the regulations for allowing a final-stage manufacturer to utilize the manufacture date of the incomplete vehicle is based partially on the fact that he has no control over the configuration of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer has no control over when and how the vehicle is completed. This justification does not exist when a single party builds the entire vehicle.

To permit a manufacturer of a complete vehicle to choose a date other than the completion date for purposes of conformity would present this agency with serious enforcement problems.

Which standards would apply would depend on how "separate" were a single company's manufacturing operations. Due to the endless possibilities that may arise in this regard, it is difficult to envision fair and objective critieria by which this decision could be made. Finally, providing the relief you request would allow a manufacturer to avoid compliance with a forthcoming standard by manufacturing large numbers of incomplete vehicles for completion by him at a later time.

You should note that the legal status of Parts 567 and 568 is unclear, due to the recent Court decisions in the Rex Chainbelt case. You will encounter no problems, however, by continuing to follow the regulations until further agency action is taken.

Sincerely,

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.24

DATE: 01/10/79

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

TO: Hon. J. M. Ashbrook - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 10, 1979

In reply refer to: NOA-30

Honorable John M. Ashbrook House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Ashbrook:

This responds to your December 19, 1978, letter asking whether it is required that school buses be built to transport a minimum of 9 passengers.

As you suggest in your letter, there is no requirement that school buses be built to transport a minimum of 9 passengers. The school bus safety regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require the compliance of those vehicles used to transport more than 10 children to or from school and related events. Vehicles with smaller passenger capacities may also transport children to and from school and need not comply with the school bus safety standards.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

December 19, 1978

Mr. David Soule Department of Transportation Room 5319 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Soule:

According to the attached findings of the Congressional Research Service, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement that school buses be built for a minimum of nine passengers plus the driver. Could you please confirm or contradict this conclusion for me in writing as soon as is conveniently possible?

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

John M. Ashbrook Representative to Congress 17th District

ID: nht79-1.25

DATE: 12/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alternative Automotive, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dec. 14, 1979

Mr. John F. Croonquist, President Alternative Automotive, Inc. 999 N. Pacific Street, 33-D Oceanside, California 92054

Dear Mr. Croonquist:

This responds to your November 9, 1979, letter asking whether a vehicle that you plan to produce would be classified as a truck for purposes of applying the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In your letter, you state that your vehicle looks somewhat like a Jeep. You state further that it is constructed on a Volkswagen truck chassis, carries two passengers, and is designed to transport property. As you know, the agency defines truck to be a vehicle that is designed primarily to transport property or speciality equipment. Since the vehicle that you plan to manufacture appears to be designed for the transportation of property and since it is constructed on a truck chassis, the agency concludes that it would be a truck for the purposes of applying the safety standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

9 November, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Roger Fairchild

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

If you will recall I talked with you on the phone about one and a half months ago concerning getting a ruling as to the classification from the NHTSA on a vehicle I am in the process of building; and therefore before proceeding further I will need a ruling from your office.

A general description of the vehicle would be a fiberglass body (similiar to a Jeep) placed on my own fabricated chassis (2" by 4"-.120 wall box tubing) which is truely a truck chassis. The design of the chassis follows closely that of the VW Bus or what Volkswagen calls their type 2 vehicle and uses VW bus front torsion, rear torsion, brakes, steering, pedal assembly and other VW bus components.

Various data supplied herein points out why we feel the vehicle should be classified as a truck; especially in light of the recent classification of the American Motors Corp. "Eagle" as a truck.

Various reasons stated are as follows: 1. Vehicle is designed to carry two persons 2. Vehicle is designed to transport property a. by using the roll bar as a super-structure to build a cargo containment area b. this will be done by placing wood siding on the roll bar sides and rear 3. Ground clearance using L78-15 tires is 14.75 in. under the front torsion and 12 in. under the rear torsion (also 12 in. is the minimum ground clearance) 4. Ground clearance on my vehicle will be equal to or greater than nearly all trucks manufactured in the U.S.A. 5. Approach angle of 64 degrees 6. Chassis is designed to carry over 2000 pounds on the front axle and 2000 pounds plus on the rear axle

Projected production calls for less than 500 vehicles per year and our projected market area will be the U.S. Territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; the reason being that the vehicle fits perfectly the climate and geography and also after traveling to these areas we have found local governments with high under-employment and more than willing to help in setting up an vehicle manufacturing facility.

However in making this facility a reality we need and actively seek the help of NHTSA, its administrators, advisors, and counsel to render assistance and relevant decisions to SMALL businesses who do not have access to corporate lawyers, the lobby folly, or other channels that big business often uses to purge the SMALL manufacturer, and more often uses to gouge the consumer.

We will await your ruling and would appreciate your earliest concern on this matter.

Sincerely,

John F. Croonquist-President

ID: nht79-1.26

DATE: 02/01/79

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

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

February 1, 1979 NOA-30

Mr. Richard J. Toner Director, Engineering Services Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association 25900 Greenfield Road Oak Park, Michigan 48237

Dear Mr Toner:

This responds to your December 7, 1978, letter asking whether the weight of stake sides which are readily removable from a flat bed body would be included in the determination of a vehicle's unloaded vehicle weight.

As you know the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has defined "unloaded vehicle weight" in a manner that does not include the vehicle weight of accessories that are normally removed when they are not in use. This is the test that manufacturers should use when determining whether the weight of any piece of equipment or accessory is to be included within the unloaded vehicle weight determination.

In your letter you indicate that the stake sides for flat bed bodies are readily removable. Readily removable is not the correct test to apply to these devices in determining whether their weight must be included within the vehicle's unloaded vehicle weight. A manufacturer must determine whether the stakes are likely to be removed when not in use. If the answer to this question is yes, then the weight of stake sides would not be included in the unloaded vehicle weight. Otherwise, the weight of those accessories must be included.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Truck Equipment & Body D/A Distributors Association

December 7, 1978

Mr. Joseph Levin Chief Council NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

Compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Standards requires that the weight of permanently attached truck equipment be included in the vehicle weight. A question has arisen concerning the weight calculations on a truck equipped with a flat bed body and stake sides. Stake sides are a grid of horizontal wooden slats and vertical stakes which slide into pockets along the edges of the body.

Because the stakes are readily removable and are not bolted or clamped to the truck body in any manner, we do not consider the stake side assemblies to be part of the truck weight. Your opinion of this interpretation would be greatly appreciated.

Thanking you for your assistance and consideration, I remain,

Yours truly,

Richard J. Toner Director, Engineering Services

RJT:dg

ID: nht79-1.27

DATE: 02/15/79

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

TO: City of Royal Oak

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 15 1979

NOA-30

Mr. William J. Baldridge City Manager City of Royal Oak P.O. Box 64 Royal Oak, Michigan 48068

Dear Mr. Baldridge:

This responds to your December 21, 1978, letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit the City of Royal Oak, Michigan to obtain a waiver from the safety standards applicable to one of its vehicles. In particular, you ask that several standards be waived because the vehicle, as altered by the addition of an aerial bucket, would no longer comply with them.

Your letter does not clearly indicate the cause of the noncompliance with Federal safety standards. The NHTSA concludes that the noncompliance probably arises because the altered vehicle will exceed the "unloaded vehicle weight" that is used in determining its compliance with several of the agency's standards. Although the agency appreciates the problems that your city has with obtaining a complying vehicle, the NHTSA has no authority to grant exemptions from safety standards for individual vehicle users.

The manufacturer and alterer of the vehicle are responsible for certifying that it complies with all Federal safety standards. The Federal government does not issue certificates that any vehicle complies with safety standards. The manufacturer or alterer, as part of its certification, must insure that its vehicle does not exceed the weight restrictions that are appropriate for the vehicle. Accordingly, if a vehicle alterer has informed you that an alteration cannot be done without exceeding the manufacturer's established weight restrictions, then the alterer could not truthfully certify the vehicle for compliance.

The NHTSA regrets the problems caused to Royal Oak by the implementation of the safety standards. The agency has received a petition from the Truck Body and Equipment Association asking for rulemaking to prevent future problems such as yours. The NHTSA currently is evaluating that petition. To resolve your problem, the agency suggests that you consider selling the chassis and utility body that you currently own and purchase another chassis and body that has a sufficient "unloaded vehicle weight" to accommodate the alteration you intend. This will enable the vehicle that you finally obtain to comply with the safety standards. These standards improve vehicle safety, and we are sure that Royal Oak would not want to purchase an unsafe vehicle.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

December 21, 1978

Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

The City of Royal Oak, Michigan has encountered a problem with the new "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, MVSS 212, 219 and 301, which reduce the maximum unloaded weight of trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Apparently these new standards were issued September 1, 1978.

The City of Royal Oak advertised in August 1978 for bids on a one (1) Ton Cab and Chassis with a G.V.W.R. of 8,000 pounds or greater, which was adequate to mount an aerial bucket weighing 2,120 pounds. An aerial bucket was not bid at that time, since an application was pending with the Office of Highway Safety Planning for a matching grant.

The low bidder on the truck, bid a 1979 G.M.C. one (1) Ton Cab and Chassis, with utility body, with a 10,000 pound G.V.W.R. The intent was to mount a twenty-four (24) foot articulating aerial bucket on this vehicle. This would provide us with a small truck which could be used for emergency repairs to traffic signals. The aerial bucket was to be powered with a small, self contained engine for energy savings.

We have now been informed by the local company that mounts aerial buckets, that it cannot install the bucket on the one Ton truck already received, because the vehicle does not meet the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Nearly $7,400 has been spent for the utility body truck, which is of no value to the City except for mounting the aerial bucket.

Therefore, it is requested that the National Traffic Safety Administration allow the City of Royal Oak to mount the proposed twenty-four foot aerial bucket on the 1979 GMC one (1) Ton truck in accordance with the Safety Standards that were in effect at the time the truck was bid. It is further requested that your office issue a certificate that will allow an installation company to mount the aerial bucket on the new vehicle and issue the required certification.

Your immediate attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

CITY OF ROYAL OAK

William J. Baldridge City Manager

ID: nht79-1.28

DATE: 03/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealer & Reatreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 22, 1979

Mr. Mark E. Grayson Executive Assistant for Government Affairs National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc. 1343 L Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. Grayson:

This is in response to your letter of March 2, 1979, in which you request clarification of several points relating to the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), and the record retention requirements applicable to tire retreaders.

You inquire first as to the obligations of tire dealers under the UTQG regulation. As explained more fully in our recent letter to Mr. Tony Hylton of your organization, the UTQG regulation places the responsibility for supplying tire grading information on vehicle and tire nanufacturers and tire brand name owners. These parties must make their own arrangements with tire distributors and dealers to assure that the required tire grading information reaches tire purchasers.

You ask whether bias-ply tires manufactured abroad prior to April 1, 1979, but imported into the United States after April 1, must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of the UTQG regulation (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)). Paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B), which becomes effective on April 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires, applies to bias-ply tires manufactured after that date. The date of manufacture rather than the date of importation is controlling in determining whether tires fall within the tread labeling requirements of the UTQG regulation.

You also ask whether tires to which the UTQG labeling requirements apply can be imported into the United States without the required tread labels, provided adequate labels are attached at the tires' point of sale. The purpose of the UTQG labeling requirements is to provide information to assist consumers in tire purchasing decisions. Therefore, the tread labeling requirements of the regulation would be satisfied if labels are attached at the dealership prior to the time the tires are offered for sale. However, manufacturers and brand name owners should be cautioned that they will be held responsible should the dealer incorrectly label the tires or neglect to attach the required labels.

Finally, you inquire whether manufacturers of retreaded tires must retain tire registration records compiled pursuant to Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (49 CFR Part 574), in view of the recent exemption of retreaders from the registration requirements of that part. While the registration requirements of Part 574 no longer apply to the sale of retreaded tires, section 574.7(d) (49 CFR 574.7(d)) nonetheless requires that previously compiled records on retreaded tires be maintained for a period of not less than three years from the date the information was recorded by the tire manufacturer or his designee.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

March 2, 1979

Mr. Richard Hipolet Office of Chief Counsel National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolet:

As requested from our conversation on Thursday, I would like for NHTSA to clarify a few points dealing with the upcoming implementation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading System.

1. What is the regulatory responsibility, if any, of our members, tire dealers, under the current regulations?

2. Can tires manufactured in a foreign country before April 1, 1979 but received in port after April 1, 1979 be available for sale without labels?

3. If tires are manufactured in a foreign country after April 1, 1979 but before the tire quality information has to be molded on the tire are imported without labels, can labels be attached at point of sale?

On another front, would you please let us know what the requirements are for retreaders to retain previous records of retread registration now that the retreader no longer has to register the tires.

We appreciate your prompt attention to these matters. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Mark E. Grayson

Executive Assistant for Government Affairs

ID: nht79-1.29

DATE: 11/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Hein, Smith & Berezin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

06 NOV 1979

Mr. Lawrence D. Smith Hein, Smith & Berezin 25 East Salem Street Hackensack, New Jersey 07601

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1979, asking whether the Federal Government has any rule, regulations or statutes that obligate an insurance carrier to maintain a log of odometer readings with respect to vehicles declared a total loss. If a vehicle is repairable and will subsequently be used as a motor vehicle, disclosure of the actual miles would have to be made to the purchaser and those statements would have to be maintained by the insurance carrier for four years. However, if the vehicle is so badly damaged that it cannot be returned to the road, it will have ceased to be a motor vehicle for purposes of the regulations. Disclosure and retention would, therefore, not be required. In those instances where disclosure and retention are required, the format is specified in 49 CFR Part 580. For your information, I have enclosed copies of the relevant portions of the regulations, along with a sample disclosure form.

Sincerely,

John Womack Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law & Legislation Enclosure

October 1, 1979

United States Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

I am an Attorney in the State of New Jersey, andrepresent several insurance companies. Recently, inquiry was addressed to me by one of my clients, requesting that I ascertain whether the State of New Jersey or the Federal Government has any rules, regulations or statutes that obligate an insurance carrier to maintain a log of odometer readings with respect to vehicles declared a total loss as the result of an automobile accident where the carrier, on paying its assured, takes title to the totaled vehicle and then sells that vehicle for salvage. I would appreciate any information you can provide me, together with copies of any pertinent rules, regulations or statutory citations.

I thank you, in advance, for your cooperation and assistance.

Very truly yours,

HEIN, SMITH & BEREZIN

Lawrence D. Smith

LDS/kd

ID: nht79-1.3

DATE: 01/26/79

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

TO: Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Szkolnicki Mechanical Engineering Motor Coach Industries, Inc. Pembina, North Dakota 58271

Dear Mr. Szkolnicki:

This responds to your January 2, 1979, request for confirmation that a July 23, 1976, interpretation of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, has been incorporated into the body of the regulation. I regret that you did not receive a reply to your letter of November 27, 1978, which was addressed to someone who is no longer in this office.

The interpretation in question has not been incorporated into the body of the regulation. During a court review of the standard which only recently concluded, the agency was making a few changes to the standard as possible. Consideration is now being given to revision of the standard in minor respects, but no date has been established for action. Until any such action is taken, you may continue to rely on the July 23, 1976, interpretation as the agency's official view of the meaning of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4.

Sincerely,

Original signed By

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

January 2, 1979

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We refer you to our letter of November 27th, copy enclosed, in which we referred your letter of July 23rd, 1976 to White Motor.

We would appreciate a reply, confirming that an amendment to the FMVS 121 was issued.

MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES

T. Szkolnicki, Supervisor Mechanical Engineering

TS/cf Enclosure

November 27th, 1978

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Frank A. Berndt - Acting Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We refer you to your letter of July 23rd, 1976, to the White Motor Corporation, copy enclosed. The letter refers to the FMVSS #121. Specifically, it refers to the apply and release times for brake chambers that have a lower max. brake chamber pressure.

The last paragraph notes that "the agency will issue an interpretive amendment to S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 to reflect this interpretation".

Can you advise if this amendment was issued, and if so, please forward a copy of this. If the amendment was not issued, can you comment on when this will be done? Thank you.

Yours very truly,

MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES, INC.,

T. Szkolnicki, Supervisor, Mechanical Engineering.

TS/jp

ID: nht79-1.30

DATE: 01/17/79

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

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 17 1979

Clarence W. Woody Maryland Department of Transportation 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E. Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062

Dear Mr. Woody:

This is in response to your letter of December 5, 1978, asking whether the abbreviated odometer disclosure statement currently used on Maryland certificates of title may also be used on a Uniform Manufacturer's Statement of Origin. Motor vehicle manufacturers are not required to provide dealers with odometer disclosure statements for new vehicles. Section 580.5 of Title 49 specifically exempts these transactions. Therefore, since there is no Federal requirement that any odometer disclosure statement be issued, you may include the abbreviated statement on the Uniform Manufacturer's Statement of Origin. Manufacturers, however, would not be required by Federal law to complete it.

You should be interested to know that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will shortly issue a proposed notice of rulemaking that will allow use of the abbreviated form on all transfer of ownership documents, not merely the certificate of title.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.31

DATE: 01/23/79

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

TO: Illinois Department of Administrative Services

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 23 1979

Mr. Ben Bagby Illinois Department of Administrative Services 716 Stratton Office Building Springfield, Illinois 62706

Dear Mr. Bagby:

This is in response to your letter of November 28, 1978, requesting our interpretation of the Federal odometer law. Your questions and answers are as follows:

1. Is the State of Illinois required to furnish odometer disclosure statements to purchasers of used vehicles which are sold by the State at public auction? Yes. For purposes of the Federal odometer law, it is irrelevant where or how vehicles are sold. The State is the transferor of the vehicles and as such is required under 49 CFR Part 580 to provide every transferee with an odometer disclosure statement.

2. If the Federal government donates to the State surplus vehicles, is the Federal government required to provide odometer information to the State? Is the State required to furnish odometer information to other governmental units and not-for-profit institutions to whom it sells these vehicles? The answer to both questions is yes. The Federal government has incorporated the odometer disclosure statement onto Standard Form 97, which is the form which officially transfers a vehicle and evidences its release from the custody of the Federal government. In some instances a separate form is used and is attached to Standard Form 97.

Part 580.3 of Title 49 defines "transferor" as "any person who transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any means other than by creation of a security interest." Therefore, it is irrelevant that the vehicles were donated by the Federal government rather than sold. The State as the new owner must, likewise, provide the purchaser with a disclosure statement.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

November 28, 1978 Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Kathy DeMeter

Dear Ms. DeMeter:

The Chicago Heights Office suggested that I contact you for a legal opinion on the following facts and questions.

1. The State of Illinois sells at public auction a number of surplus vehicles each year. For the most part the vehicles are purchased by dealers for resale, but a number are for the purchasers' personal use. Under these circumstances, is the State of Illinois required to furnish odometer information to the purchasers of the used vehicles?

2. The federal government donates to the State of Illinois a number of surplus vehicles. The State then sells these vehicles for a service charge to governmental units and select not-for-profit institutions. Under these circumstances, is the federal government required to provide odometer information to the State? Is the State required to furnish odometer information to other governmental units or not-for-profit institutions?

Let me thank you in advance for your help. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 217/782-4217.

Sincerely,

Ben Bagby Assistant Counsel

BB:ms