Interpretation ID: 77-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/77 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1977, asking whether 49 CFR Part 577 conflicts with Section 153(c)(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Pursuant to Section 153(c)(4) notification by a manufacturer to a dealer must be "by certified mail or other more expeditious means." On the other hand, Part 577 require notification to be given by first class mail to the first or most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer, in your view, which could mean a dealer. You stated that the "apparently conflicting" requirements affect the mailing of notices to dealers when they are the last known purchasers.

There is no conflict. Part 577 is a regulation for the notification of owners of vehicles, not dealers. The regulation sets forth -- "requirements for notification to owners of motor vehicles" (577.1) and its purpose "is to insure that notifications of defects or noncompliances adequately inform and effectively motivate owners . . . to have such vehicles . . . inspected and, when necessary, remedied as quickly as possible" (577.2). A dealer is not an "owner" within the intent of Part 577 and a manufacturer's notification obligation to its dealers is that set out in Section 153(c)(4).

Therefore, we cannot confirm that first class mailings from a manufacturer to a dealer conform to Part 577, and your letter offers no facts upon which to base a finding that first class mail is a "more expeditious means" of dealer notification than certified mail.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 18, 1977

Frank Bendt, Acting Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for Interpretation Part 577 Defect and Noncompliance Notification

Dear Mr. Bendt:

White Motor Corporation requests an interpretation of Part 577 as it applies to the Act @ 153 (c)(4).

Part 577 as published in 41FR56813 (December 30, 1976) requires defect notification to be sent by first class mail to the first or most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. In the case of vehicles and equipment, the purchaser may be a dealer. The Act, however, states:

"@ 153(c)(4) by certified mail or other more expeditious means to the dealer or dealers of such manufacturer to whom such motor vehicle or replacement equipment was delivered." (emphasis added)

These apparently conflicting statements affect the mailing of notices to dealers when they were the last known purchaser. This condition is expected to occur for motor vehicles when the defect was discovered shortly after the vehicle was shipped from the factory and for replacement equipment.

White Motor Corporation sends defect notification to all its dealers for each recall campaign regardless of the expected geographical location of the suspect vehicles. These are presently sent by certified mail. In view of both the time and expense involved in preparing the hundreds of certification documents and the additional postage, we would like to send these by first class mail.

We request confirmation that such first class mailings conform to Part 577 and the Act, either as "other more expeditious means" (Act @ 153(c)(4)) or by some other clause.

Sincerely,

J. W. Lawrence, Manager -- Safety Safety & Environmental Engineering, WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION