Interpretation ID: 1982-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Middlekauff Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of September 27 and October 7, 1982, concerning your wish for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301.

In our letter of August 12, 1982, we informed you that the statement which 49 CFR Part 568 requires an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the vehicle affords a basis for certification without the necessity of testing. We asked you which of the statements had been provided you. Your subsequent correspondence with us does not answer this question. You refer to a print furnished you by AM General Corporation after August 12 which, with your engineering studies, leads you to believe that you may comply, but the print is extraneous to the Part 568 statement.

Therefore, we would still like to know whether AM General has provided you with a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform with Standard No. 301, or, alternatively, with a statement that the vehicle will conform if no alterations are made in certain specified components of the incomplete vehicle. Perhaps you could send us a copy of that portion of the Part 568 statement pertaining to Standard No. 301.

We shall consider your petition further when we have this information.

Sincerely,

October 7, 1982

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Transporation, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

DEAR MR. BERNDT:

This is in reference to our letter to you of September 27, 1982 regarding our petition for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #301.

In paragraph two of our letter, we stated that "it was the feeling of AM General that they would prefer to certify the completed vehicles themselves rather than have us certify the vehicles as the final manufacturer". This was an error. We have since been advised that they would still require us to certify the vehicles as final manufacturer in compliance with Public Law 89-563. It is their belief, however, that the possession of the temporary exemption to Standard #301, referred to in our letters, would still be benefical in addition to our certification of compliance with all remaining Standards.

In view of the above, once again, we respectfully request that you issue the temporary exemption to Standard #301 for all the reasons outlined in our previous letters.

Thanking you for your consideration,

Very respectfully yours, MIDDLEKAUFF, INC.; F. E. Bettridge -- Board Chairman