ID: nht76-5.33

DATE: 06/22/76

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER FOR JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

COPYEE: STEVE JONAS -- AMC; ARCH DOTY -- MVMA; GEORGE NIELD -- AIA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telephone request of June 17, 1976, for confirmation that @ 575.101 of Part 575, Consumer Information, was recently revised to specify vehicle stopping distance information based on stops that may include wheel lockup under the conditions allowed by Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You note that the text of @ 575.101(c)(5), and the accompanying illustration in Figure 1 of the section, describe the information provided as performance achieved "without locking the wheels."

Your interpretation of the requirements of @ 575.101 is correct. In amending Part 575 to permit the use of stopping distance data collected in tests for Standard No. 105-75, the agency made all changes it believed necessary to provide for the use of stopping distance information gathered in connection with Standard No. 105-75 (41 FR 1066, January 6, 1976). The reference to "without locking the wheels" should have been deleted from the text of @ 575.101(c)(5) and Figure 1. A correcting amendment will be issued shortly.

The correction of an omission from the text of the first paragraph of @ 575.101(c) will also be made at that time. In the last sentence of that paragraph, the concluding option (as published in the Federal Register) should read "under the procedures specified in paragraph (d) of this section and the conditions specified in paragraph (e) of this section."

ID: nht76-5.34

DATE: 09/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Allan J. Kam; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretations file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING: TELEPHONE CALL FROM CHARLES McCARTY OF B.F. GOODRICH ON 9/22/76

On September 22, 1976, I received a telephone call from Charles McCarty of B.F. Goodrich. He asked about data which he said was referred to in the court's recent decision. When I asked specifically where in the court's decision, he referred to page 21, paragraph 2, which concerns the remand on course monitoring tires. I told Mr. McCarty that nothing has been published in that regard in the Federal Register since the court's decision, and that I would prefer not to offer any predictions because the matter was still in litigation.

I told him that, as he may know, the tire companies had filed a petition for rehearing on Septermber 16, and thus they had chosen to keep the matter in litigation. Therefore, I said, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the matter with him directly rather than with the attorneys for his company in the litigation. He said that he understood.

ID: nht76-5.35

DATE: 11/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yokohama Tire Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your October 15,1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the effective dates of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) (49 CFR Part 575.104).

As Mr. Schwimmer explained, (i) the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not yet established new effective dates for the UTQGS regulation; (ii) when the new effective dates are established, they will be announced in the Federal Register; and (iii) the interval between the announcement of the effective dates and the dates themselves will be sufficient to allow manufacturers to prepare for compliance with the regulation.

For your convenience, an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standard and Regulations" is enclosed.

ID: nht76-5.36

DATE: 05/11/76

FROM: VETTER FOR JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to inform you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will, for a limited time, refrain from enforcing one portion of 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations.

Subpart B of Part 575 specifies certain items of consumer information that apply to motor vehicles and their tires. Section 575.6 in Subpart A requires this information to be delivered to first purchasers (paragraphs (a) and (b)), made available to prospective purchasers (paragraph (c)) and submitted to the NHTSA (paragraph (d)). In particular, @ 575.6(d) requires that:

Each manufacturer of motor vehicles . . . shall submit to the Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Part B of this part that is applicable to the vehicles or tires offered for sale, at least 30 days before that information is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

I understand that the strike by the United Rubber Workers has, by cutting off the supply of new tires, created an emergency situation within the motor vehicle industry, making it difficult for a manufacturer to know more than several days before it completes a vehicle which tires will be available for installation on the vehicle. I understand further that the provision of such information to the NHTSA 30 days before it is made available to prospective purchasers has become virtually impossible.

In view of the impracticability under the current circumstances of the 30-day-notice requirement, the NHTSA has concluded that enforcement of the requirement at this time is inappropriate. Accordingly, with respect to vehicles offered for sale during the strike and the 60-day period following its settlement, the NHTSA will refrain from enforcing the 30-day-notice requirement in @ 575.6(d). Submittals of information to the agency must continue to be made, however, not later than the time the information is made available to prospective purchasers. With respect to vehicles that will be offered for sale at the expiration of the 60-day period, the NHTSA expects to begin receiving submittals after the thirtieth day following settlement of the strike.

Please note that the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of @ 575.6, as well as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims -- Passenger Cars, are not affected by this letter.

ID: nht76-5.37

DATE: 03/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hogan & Hartson

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter of December 5, 1975, and your subsequent conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning a vehicle manufacturer's duty to provide consumer information pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards.

Your letter included a sample information sheet for the model 240D with Dunlop 185 SR 14 tires. For that model equipped with those tires, the format of the sheet would meet the requirements of @ 575.104(d)(1)(iii) for information to be furnished to the first purchaser of a new motor vehicle. Similarly, if the vehicle is offered for sale only with those tires, the format would meet the requirements of @ 575.104(d)(1)(iii) for information to be furnished to prospective purchasers.

Please note that the stay of this regulation, issued last August by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, is still in effect.

ID: nht76-5.38

DATE: 05/20/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Earl M. Hoosline

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 11, 1976, requesting information concerning your daughter's purchase of a 1972 Plymouth whose odometer was allegedly rolled back.

The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) prohibits alteration of the mileage indicated on an odometer and requires that a written disclosure of a vehicle's mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time the ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, however, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer. There is no requirement that these disclosure statements be retained by either the transferor or the transferee.

Violation of any of the above requirements may subject the violator to civil liability where his actions were intended to defraud the purchaser. The Act makes available to the buyer a remedy in the amount of $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain this remedy, section 409 of the Act provides that a private civil action be instituted in State or Federal court.

If a vehicle has traveled over 100,000 miles and this is not reflected on the odometer, the odometer disclosure statement should indicate that the mileage registered on the odometer does not reflect the true number of miles the vehicle has driven. If the suggested Federal form is used in making the disclosure, the following statement should be checked:

"I further state that the actual mileage differs from the odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown."

However, since the actual mileage would be known in the case where the odometer had simply passed the 100,000 mark, the seller should state what the actual mileage is.

For your information, I am forwarding copies of the relevant portions of the Act and the disclosure requirements, in addition to the consumer information pamphlet on odometers.

SINCERELY,

DEAR SIRS:

Legal April, 11, 1976

Would like a little information on odometer tampering law: Daughter bought a 197 plymouth (SECOND HAND) actual miles on odometer card 45,800 miles. Drove 2000 miles and had to have over hauled mechanic stated the car had much over the named mileage how far back does odometer check have to be kept -- my understand, was owned & sold by at least two dealers before us. If the car has gone over the 100, thousand mark does that all have to be shown on paper, please let me know by returned mail if any information would be helpful to me & others

Thank you

Earl M. Hoosline

ID: nht76-5.39

DATE: 10/28/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Jack B. Schiff

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 8, 1976, concerning odometer statements issued by auction companies.

As we have indicated in previous letters to you, the statement "no mileage guarantee" does not conform to section 580.6 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, the disclosure form. Therefore, any transferor of a motor vehicle who gives such a statement to his buyer is in violation of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. This applies equally to all transferors of ownership in motor vehicles, including individuals, dealers, distributors, and auction companies.

At first glance, the odometer disclosure statement issued by Floyd Hauhe Auto Auction appears to be in violation of the Federal law because it clearly states that mileage is not guaranteed. However, upon closer inspection, such is not necessarily the case. You will note that their statement says "warranty and mileage are not guaranteed to be good or correct on any car purchased thru this auction." (Emphasis added) Additionally, it says that "this sale is solely a transaction between the buying and selling dealer." This language changes the facts significantly. The vehicle appears not to be as you state in your letter, purchased "from" the auction company. It was instead purchased through the auction, and Floyd Hauhe was not, apparently, a tranferor of ownership in a motor vehicle as defined in Part 580.3 of title 49.

The responsibilities of an auctioneer with regard to the Federal odometer law vary depending upon the capacity in which he is operating. If the auctioneer is conducting business with both the buyer and seller present, the seller is required to disclose the mileage to the buyer at the time of sale and the auctioneer is essentially a by-stander as far as the Federal requirements are concerned. If the auctioneer buys a vehicle, then auctions it, he becomes the transferor and must disclose the mileage. In this case, the auctioneer would not be permitted to state that mileage was not guaranteed. If the auctioneer is acting as consignee for a seller who is not present and who may have delivered the vehicle from hundreds of miles away, he will have to obtain some assurance from the seller concerning the mileage on the vehicle at the time it left the owner's premises before a disclosure is made. As owner, the seller is ultimately responsible for the disclosure statement, but he may have to rely on his driver or the auctioneer to make out the statement at the auction.

It is unclear from the Floyd Hauhe Auto Auction statement as to the capacity in which they are operating. The language on the face of the statement appears to indicate that they are not tranferors and thus are not responsible for issuing odometer statements. If however, they are requested to do so absent sellers, their form is in violation of the Act because it does not provide the transferor's name, address or signature, and because it states that mileage is not guaranteed.

I hope that this information clarifies your questions. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

ID: nht76-5.4

DATE: 07/23/76

FROM: HERLIHY FOR S.P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: Celanese Fibers Marketing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1976, recommendation that paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, be amended to clarify that the temperature specified in the "resistance to light" test procedure is intended to be "black panel" temperature rather than "bare bulb" temperature.

The procedures outlined in Standard No. 209 for the "resistance to light" test were adopted from the Bureau Standard's procedures for testing seat belts. The standard was developed by an industry and government group, which included Celanese Fibers, as a simplification and improvement of the A.S.T.M. Designation E42-64 procedure. The "resistance to light" test was established to test nylon webbing, which was the standard material used in seat belt webbing at that time.

We recognize, however, that the industry now uses decron and polyester materials in seat belt webbing, and that the Standard 209 test procedure developed to test nylon does not give meaningful results for these new materials. Therefore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not enforce the requirements of paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209 in the case of seat belt webbing made of dacrons and polyesters, and will not until appropriate testing procedures can be developed and incorporated in the standard for these new materials.

Procedures for testing systems containing materials other than nylon are under development and we plan to initiate rulemaking to incorporate these procedures into standard 209. You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule in question will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

We would appreciate any data you may be able to provide regarding colorfastness tests for fabrics other than nylon.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht76-5.40

DATE: 03/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Joseph S. Russo

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1976, requesting an opinion as to whether documents enclosed with your correspondence would satisfy the requirements of the disclosure provisions contained in Section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) and 49 CFR Part 580.

It appears that both documents contain all of the information necessary to comply with the odometer disclosure requirements.

SINCERELY,

LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH S. RUSSO

January 29, 1976

Department of Transportation

Enclosed herewith are documents we propose to supply our clients for their use in transferring titles to motor vehicles.

Please advise this office as to whether or not these documents are in compliance with the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act Public Law 92-513 86 Stat. 947 (15 USC 1988 and 49 CFR 580.1).

This additional information on the forms is required by LSA-R.S. 32:726.1 of the Statutes of Louisiana.

Joseph S. Russo

STATE OF LOUISIANA

PARISH OF JEFFERSON

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally came and appeared who, after being duly sworn, deposed that he donates the automobile described below to to whom he has already transferred possession thereof. The approximate value of this vehicle is .

Odometer Mileage Statement (Federal Law Requirement)

(Federal regulations require you to state the odometer mileage upon transfer of ownership. An inaccurate statement may make you liable for damages to your transferee, pursuant to Section 409(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, Public Law 92-513.)

I, , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described below is miles.

(Check the following statement, if applicable:)

[] I further state that the actual mileage differs from the odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown. MAKE BODY TYPE YEAR MODEL VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER LAST PLATE NUMBER

Transferor's address:

Transferor's signature:

Date of this statement:

Odometer Mileage Statement (State Law Requirement)

To the best knowledge and belief of transferor, the odometer mileage given above is the true mileage, unless otherwise indicated above. If otherwise indicated above, the true mileage to transferor's best knowledge and belief is .

Transferor

THUS DONE in my office on the day of 19 , in the presence of the undersigned competent witnesses and me, Notary.

EXECUTED IN DUPLICATE. WITNESSES:

NOTRAY PUBLIC

BILL OF SALE

I, , do hereby sell and convey unto the following described automobile for the price of :

Odometer Mileage Statement (Federal Law Requirement)

(Federal regulations require you to state the odometer mileage upon transfer of ownership. An inaccurate statement may make you liable for damages to your transferee, pursuant to Section 409(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, Public Law 92-513.)

I, , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described below is miles.

(Check the following statement, if applicable:)

[] I further state that the actual mileage differs from the odometer reading for reasons than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown. MAKE BODY TYPE YEAR MODEL VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER LAST PLATE NUMBER

Transferor's address: Transferor's signature:

Date of this statement:

Transferee's signature:

Odometer Mileage Statement (State Law Requirement)

To the best knowledge and belief of transferor, the odometer mileage given above is the true mileage, unless otherwise indicated above. If otherwise indicated above, the true mileage to transferor's best knowledge and belief is .

Transferor

Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of .

NOTARY PUBLIC

ID: nht76-5.41

DATE: 04/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mark Andrews; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 19, 1976, requesting our comments on an inquiry from one of your constituents, Mr. Pat Milloy, concerning the proper format for disclosure of odometer mileage information in compliance with the Federal odometer disclosure regulation (49 CFR Part 580).

Mr. Milloy states in his letter that a Colorado dealer, ordering odometer disclosure forms, has indicated that the required Federal format has been changed. The format referred to by the Colorado dealer differs from the Federal form which Mr. Milloy and his client, Globe-Gazette Printing Company, believe to still be in force.

The Federal odometer disclosure regulation has not been amended since its initial enactment. The format requested by the Colorado dealer (form "B" enclosed in Mr. Milloy's letter) fails to comply with the current Federal odometer disclosure requirements in several respects. The statement referring to the mileage indicated on the odometer at the time of the vehicle's transfer must be phrased to indicate that the disclosure document was executed at the time of the vehicle's transfer, not at some later time. In addition, the statement must be written in such a manner that it is clear it is to be completed by the transferor alone. To satisfy these criteria the statement should read:

"I, , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described above, at the time of transfer to is as follows:"

The portion of the document provided for disclosure of the odometer mileage and a statement as to its accuracy is also deficient. Instructions are necessary on this part of the form to ensure that it is completed in a consistent manner by all persons. The number of miles indicated on the odometer at the time of the vehicle's transfer need not appear a second time if the form includes the statement recommended above. If the seller wishes, he may indicate on the form that the actual mileage is over 100,000 miles. In addition, the statement concerning the accuracy of the vehicle's reflected mileage must be more complete than the one included in form "B." Completion of the disclosure document in accordance with these directions may be accomplished as follows:

"(Where applicable, complete line 1 and/or check line 2:)

1. total cumulative miles (if over 100,000).

2. [] I further state that the actual mileage differs from the odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown."

The odometer regulation's provisions do not require that the transferee sign the statement nor do they make it necessary to have the document notarized. In addition, the date on which the transferor purchased the vehicle need not be provided.

As long as the requirements of the disclosure regulation are satisfied, there is no limitation on including additional information in the disclosure statement. Thus, modifying the statement "B" format to meet the Federal requirements in the manner described above would be sufficient for compliance by the Colorado dealer. The additional information appearing in form "B" may be retained without affecting compliance.

I hope this letter answers Mr. Milloy's questions concerning the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to let me know.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

March 19, 1976

Mr. Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Jacob, of my staff, informs me that he spoke to you about the matter detailed in the attached (Illegible Word), and that you agreed to respond to it.

I appreciate your cooperation in our effort to clarify what Federal Odometer Disclosure Form should be printed.

I look forward to your response.

MARK ANDREWS Congressman for North Dakota