Interpretation ID: aiam1619
Service Quality Manager
British Leyland Motors Inc.
600 Willow Tree Road
Leonia
NJ 07605;
Dear Mr. Bate: We have reviewed your draft owner notification letter regarding th noncompliance of certain Jaguar 'E' Type 2+2 sedans which fail to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207. We find that your letter fails to conform to 49 CFR Part 577, 'Defect Notification' in two respects. It does not conform to section 577.4(b)(1), which specifies the content of the second sentence of each notification. We do not consider the determination that a safety related defect exists in these vehicles to have been made by the NHTSA Administrator. Such a determination can only follow proceedings held pursuant to section 113(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402(e)). No such proceeding has been held in this case. The correspondence you received is directed at what we consider to be a formalized settlement of the matter, and not a formal determination proceeding. The first two sentences of your second paragraph should therefore be changed to read:; >>>'British Leyland Motors Inc., has determined that a defect whic relates to motor vehicle safety exists in a range of 1968 to 1972 Jaguar 'E' Type 2+2's. The defect results from a noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207.'<<<; In addition, section 577.4(e)(1)(ii) requires the notification t contain the manufacturer's estimate of the day by which his dealers or other service facility will be supplied with corrective parts and instructions. Your letter mentions only that parts will be in the hands of distributors by a 'campaign launch date.' The information must include an estimated date by which corrective parts will be in the hands of dealers.; In other respects your letter conforms to Part 577. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel