Interpretation ID: nht81-2.15

DATE: 04/16/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rivkin, Sherman and Levy

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 16 1981 NOA-30

Donald M. Schwentker, Esq. Rivkin, Sherman and Levy 900 17th Street, N.W. Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Schwentker:

This letter is in reference to our March 20, 1981, meeting with you and your client, Jaguar. The meeting was held at your request and concerned whether future product plans of Jaguar are consistent with existing Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

As we indicated to you at the beginning of the meeting, the agency does not give oral interpretations. The agency holds such meetings with industry representatives in order to help those representatives identify questions which should be submitted in writing to the Office of Chief Counsel for interpretation, and to familiarize agency personnel with the specific nature of products at issue.

One concern expressed by Jaguar in that meeting was the confidentiality of its future product plans. In issuing letters of interpretation, the agency ordinarily will provide confidential treatment for future product plans. A request for confidential treatment should accompany the request for interpretation. The agency published a final rule concerning confidential business information in the Federal Register (46 FR 2049) on January 8, 1981. While that rule is not yet effective, we suggest that its procedures for requesting confidential treatment be followed. We would note that even where the agency provides confidential treatment for future product plans, letters of interpretation issued by the agency are made available to the public for inspection. In drafting a letter of interpretation, only the information necessary for that interpretation would be stated. The agency does not issue private letters of interpretation, however. During the March 20 meeting, you indicated that Jaguar might find it preferable not to request an interpretation in light of its concerns about confidentiality. We would like to remind you that informal discussions with agency personnel should not be relied on as evidence that the agency approves of stated product plans or that those plans comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Moreover, the fact that particular issues concerning compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards were not raised at the March 20 meeting should not be taken to mean that such issues do not exist. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel