Interpretation ID: aiam1462
Product Development Engineer
Conco
Incorporated
Mendota
IL 61342;
Dear Mr. Moeller: This is in response to your letter to Mr. W. J. Reinhart, dated Marc 26. In this letter you requested that the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) reconsider the necessity of your revising the notification letters which were mailed by you in conjunction with your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No. 74-0038).; We have determined that your notification letter must be revised an that you must provide this office, and those owners who did not correct their vehicles, with a copy, sent certified mail, of the revised letter. It is not sufficient under Part 577 for you to state that a 'safety hazard' exists 'due to a decrease in visibility of the vehicle.' This statement fails to conform to section 577.4(d) of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577). That section provides that the risk to traffic safety presented by the defect be evaluated in terms of whether or not vehicle crash is the *potential* occurrence.We believe it obvious within the context of Part 577 that the potential result of the failure of any vehicle to conform to the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108 is vehicle crash. The factors you cite, that the vehicles have limited use, go only to whether it is likely they may be involved in crashes, not whether crash is the potential or possible result. In this regard, we note that your own description of the likelihood of crash does not preclude the possibility that crash can occur.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs;