Interpretation ID: aiam1496
100 Erieview Plaza
Cleveland
OH 44114;
Dear Mr. Reinhardt: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1974, asking us to approv language to be substituted for the first two sentences of the second paragraph of White's version of the defect notification letter in campaign No. 73-0140, as well as substitute language suggested by the Court.; We would consider the language of either submission to conform to 4 CFR Part 577 if the word 'may' is stricken. The sentence would then read, 'We have found that a defect exists in that . . .' We have interpreted the regulations to require the finding that the defect exists, not that it may exist. However, the notification letter may indicate that the defect may not be present in every vehicle if that is the case.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Assistant Chief Counsel