ID: nht89-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/21/89

FROM: WAYNE KRAUSE -- WALTCO TRUCK EQUIPMENT COMPANY

TO: STEVEN T. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO WAYNE KRAUSE -- WALTCO; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood,

We are asking for comments on whether or not our proposed tail light arrangement complies with FMVSS-108.

The enclosed drawings show our RGL-Series tail gate lift with the platform stored below floor level of a truck or trailer for transmit.

The platform in this position, would of course, block from view any normal tail light arrangement. In order to comply with the 45 degree visibility requirements of FMVSS-108, we propose to use two sets of tail lights (tail, stop and turn lights) as show n on drawings.

Light Set 1 is installed above floor level (not to exceed 72" for ground) and inside of tail gate rails.

Light Set 2 will be installed under the vehicle body, slightly forward of the rear of the body and approximately flush with the side of the vehicle.

Both lights of Set 1 would be visible from the rear of the vehicle and would act as the primary tail lights.

Light Set 2 would act as auxiliary tail lights that would be visible from the side of the vehicle as shown in drawings. We feel this is permissible under FMVSS-108; 49 CFR 571.108 (section 4.3.1.1.1) and SAE J585e.

While we feel this light arrangement meets all of the requirements set forth in FMVSS-108 with respect to location of tail lights, we would like your comments.

We would also appreciate a speedy reply if at all possible.

Sincerely,

Enc.: Drawing 80100693

Drawing 80100694

ID: nht89-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: P.H. MOES -- PRESIDENT U.S. TRADE CORP.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/27/88 FROM P.H. MOES TO NHTSA RE INTERPRETATION CAFE REGULATIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES; OCC 3479

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moes:

This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1989, requesting as interpretation of your company's obligations and responsibilities when importing and converting motor vehicles for use in the United States. Specifically, you asked about the effects of the differing practices of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to indicating the importer of record on their respective import forms, form HS-7 and form 3250-1. You also asked about your obligat ions for annual CAFE reporting.

Your understanding that the vehicle owner is normally shown as the importer of record on DOT form HS-7 is correct. EPA, on the other hand, requires that for purposes of certification under EPA from 3520-1, an independent commercial importer (ICI) regist ered with EPA must be shown as the importer of record. You indicated that these two different designations of the importer of record have caused confusion in your dealings with U.S. Customs officials. You state that those officials have sometimes requi red customs brokers to list your company as the importer of record on the DOT forms as well as on the EPA form.

The Customs Service headquarters office has recognized that there has been some confusion in the past, but has indicated to NHTSA that it intends to clarify this matter with its field offices. You should thus instruct your brokers to continue to indicat e the vehicle's owner as the importer of record on the DOT importation declaration, form HS-7 and the checklist of conformance operations, form HS-189, if submitted.

With respect to CAFE reporting, section 501(9) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, (MVICSA, 15 USC 1901 et seq.) defines the term "manufacture" as meaning "... to produce or assemble in the customs territory of the United States, or to import" (emphasis added). Thus, under MVICSA, an importer is clearly a manufacturer for purposes of

CAFE requirements. Section 502 of MVICSA requires all manufacturers to comply with the CAFE standards for their vehicles, and section 505 sets out CAFE reporting requirements for such manufacturers. (See also, 49 CFR @ 537.5). As with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1391 et seq.), it is the importer of record, as shown on form HS-7, who must comply with these reporting requirements. Your firm, however, may be required to report fuel economy data to EPA. See, 40 CFR @@ 85.1510(f), 600.312-86.)

I hope you have found this information helpful.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/89

FROM: WOLFRED FREEMAN -- FREEMAN AND COMPANY

TO: ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/06/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO WOLFRED FREEMAN; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear General Curry,

I hereby petition your bureau for permission to produce a color coded (Green-Amber-Red) rear light device for all types of motor vehicles. This type of signal would provide information to the driver of the following vehicle as to what actions is taking place. Just as one seeing a "white back up light" knows that the driver intent is to back up, whether the vehicle is moving or not. With my proposed device one would immediately know what the drivers intentions were. If the driver had their foot on the gas the light would be Green, as soon as the foot was removed from the throttle, the light would show Amber alerting the following driver that the driver in front had removed their foot from the gas and was costing or about to make a move either to the gas or the brake. The present system of Red light intensity provides no information as to driver intent.

I think the variable glow Red has a tendency to mesmerize one over a period of time and should be improved for traffic safety.

It is my understanding that research has already been done by your Bureau on human factor reaction time to my proposed signal as opposed to light intensity differential systems now in use. It is also my understanding that this research favored my type o f system.

We have designed a workable auxiliary system that can be adopted to cars and trucks now on the road. But before we go any further we want to be sure that we will not be beating our heads against a bureaucracy wall.

I think your review of my request will disclose enough research and development to allow for a speedy approval of my request.

Awaiting your reply, I remain, Sincerely.

ID: nht89-2.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1989

FROM: Betsy Dittemore, Legislative Liaison, State of Iowa, Department of Public Safety

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-30-90 to B. Dittemore from P. J. Rice; (A35; Std. 205); and NHTSA bulletin dated 8-85 re Federal Auto Safety Laws and Motor Vehicle Window Tinting

TEXT:

I am requesting information regarding the interpretation of the federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting applicability.

Attached is a 1985 document from NHTSA stating in part "... light transmittance through the combination of tinting film and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility." That standard, referred to as Standard No. 205, applies to new vehicle manufacture. Also, "... no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add tinting to windows in a motor vehicle, if that tinting would 'render' inoperative the glazing' s compliance with Standard No. 205." While neither of these provisions applies to individual vehicle owners, they in turn must comply with applicable state law.

Legislation was proposed in 1989 (attached) that states that a sunscreen device (which includes a film material used in conjunction with safety glazing to reduce the effects of the sun) shall be nonreflective and shall have light transmission of not less than thirty-five percent. I would interpret that to mean that only 35% of the sunlight must pass through, which would not meet Standard No. 205. Also attached is supporting material that states that many states currently allow this level of light tran smission.

The NHTSA Bulletin, 1985, further states that "... states may not establish provisions regarding tinting or other vehicle window requirements which are either more or less stringent than those provided by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205." Iowa has adopted the federal standard for window glazing material.

I would appreciate your assistance in reviewing the attached Window Film Legislation and informing me of whether those levels are in compliance with federal standards. Also, whether the attached legislation would meet federal guidelines, Standard No. 20 5.

ID: nht89-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/26/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: MELANIE TURNER -- QUALITY CONTROL DIAMOND-STAR MOTORS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/31/84 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 04/13/78 FROM JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- NHTSA TO MOE PARE; NOA 30; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM MELANIE TURNER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NH TSA; OCC 2777

TEXT: Dear Ms. Turner:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). I apologize for the delay in this response.

You were particularly interested in the marking requirements set forth in Standard No. 205. Before I address your specific questions, it might be helpful to provide some background information on the origin and purposes of those marking requirements. D ifferent marking requirements apply depending upon whether your company is a "prime glazing material manufacturer" or simply a manufacturer that cuts sections of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies. Section S6.1 of Standard No. 205 define s a "prime glazing material manufacturer" as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material.

Sections S6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205 set forth marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers. Section S6.1 requires prime glazing material manufacturers to mark each item of glazing material in accordance with section 6 of Amer ican National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (ANS Z-26). One of the requirements of S6 of ANS Z-26 is that a manufacturer mark its glazing with its own "distinctive designation or trademark." Section S6.2 of Standard No. 205 requires prime glazing material manufacturers to mark each item of glazing material designed to be used in a specific vehicle with the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer code mark that is assigned by this agency. Section S6.3 requires prime glazing material manufacturers to certify compliance with Standard No. 205 for each piece of its glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies th at is designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Sections S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205 set forth marking requirements that apply to each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies for use in a motor vehicle or camper. Section S6.4 requires the manufacturer or distributor to mark that material in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. Section S6.5 requires the manufacturer or distributor to certify that its product complies with Standard No. 205.

The purpose of these marking requirements is to help the agency identify the actual manufacturer of the glazing material for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. The difference in the marking requirements was designed to help the ag ency distinguish between glazing in a motor vehicle that had been manufactured by a prime glazing material manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle and glazing that had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation.

With this background, I will now address your specific questions. Your first question was whether the required markings must be located in any specified position on the glass, particularly the side door glass. No provision in either Standard No. 205 or ANS Z26 requires the manufacturer markings to appear in any specific position or area of the glazing. Hence, those required markings may appear anywhere on the glazing.

Your second, third, and fourth questions were all concerned with the issue of whether the required markings must be visible after the glazing has been installed in a vehicle. The answer to this question is no.

We first responded to this issue in an April 13, 1978 letter to Mr. Moe Pare, Jr. Mr. Pare had asked whether the certification markings required on glazing materials by Standard No. 205 must remain visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle afte r installation. We replied that: "There is nothing in the certification requirements of section S6 of Standard No. 205 that requires the markings to remain visible after installation on the vehicle." I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Mr. Pare for your information.

We elaborated on our interpretation of this issue in an August 31, 1984 letter to Mr. K. Yamada of Toyota Motor Corporation (copy enclosed). In that letter, we said:

The certification requirements of section S6 of Standard 205 do not require the markings to remain visible after installation of the glazing on a vehicle. As long as the glazing manufacturer has certified and marked its glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as the markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer, there is no prohibition against covering the markings.

Your fifth question asked about specifications for the height of the lettering, point size, and dimensions for the required markings on glazing. As noted above, section S6.1 of Standard No. 205 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to mark g lazing materials it manufactures in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. Section S6.4 of Standard No. 205 requires each manufacturer or distributor that cuts a section of glazing material for use in a motor vehicle or camper to mark

the material in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. Section 6 of ANS Z26 states that:

. . . all safety glazing materials manufactured for use in accordance with this code shall be legibly and permanently marked in letters and numerals at least 0.070 inch (1.78 mm) in height, with the words "American National Standard" or the characters AS, and, in addition, with a model number that will identify the type of construction of the glazing material. They shall also be marked with the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark.

Footnote 27 in Section 6 of ANS Z26 reads: "The model number shall be assigned by the manufacturer of the safety glazing material and shall be related by the manufacturer to a detailed description of a specific glazing material."

Your sixth and final question asked about the required content of the manufacturer certification and marking requirements for items of glazing. As noted above, the marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers are set forth in sections S 6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205. The marking requirements for manufacturers and distributors that cut a section of glazing material for use in a motor vehicle or camper are set forth in section S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about the topic, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: nht89-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: HENRY J. NOWAK -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/30/89 FROM HENRY J. NOWAK -- CONGRESS TO JOHN STONER -- DOT; LETTER DATED 04/14/89 FROM EUGENIA M. PIERAKOS AND JAMES L. PIERAKOS -- SNOWFIGHTING EQUIPMENT AND CONSULTING OF BUFFALO INC;

TEXT: Dear Mr. Nowak:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituents, Ms. Eugenia M. Pierakos and Mr. James L. Pierakos. Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos are president and sales manager, respectively, of a firm which is the western New York state dealer for Jaeger Ind ustries, Inc., a Canadian manufacturer of curbside recycling equipment. They stated that Jaeger has had difficulty obtaining data/regulations that apply to a type of vehicle manufactured by Jaeger, and specifically asked about regulations related to the use of chain steering for dual steering applications, brakes, and throttle. According to the Pierakos' letter, Jaeger has spoken with two officials of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and no one has provided that company with any def initive answers. Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos requested assistance in obtaining the necessary information.

I note that we do recall speaking with a representative of Jaeger by telephone. We were not able to provide definitive answers to that company by telephone, since it is our policy not to provide oral interpretations of our safety standards. This policy is for the benefit of the person requesting the interpretation and the agency. It ensures that there are no misunderstandings as to the question or response, and that there is an opportunity for appropriate review of the interpretation within the agency . The policy also enables us to place all interpretations in the docket, so that the public has access to each interpretation. While we advised Jaeger that they could submit their questions in writing, our records do not show any written request from t hat company.

I will now provide what information I can in response to the Pierakos' request. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safet y standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States

2 must comply with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment compl y with applicable standards.

Enclosed is a pamphlet which provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Among other things, the pamphlet explains where to obtain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

As indicated above, Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos specifically asked about regulations concerning chain steering for dual steering applications, brakes, and throttle, that would apply to the vehicle manufactured by Jaeger. Information included with the l etter indicates that the vehicle in question is an air-braked truck with a gross vehicle weight rating over 30,000 pounds.

NHTSA has not issued any standards for "chain steering." Moreover, no standard prohibits a manufacturer from providing dual steering. With respect to brakes, Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, establishes performance and equipment requirements for bra king systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, specifies labeling and performance requirements for brake hose, brake hose assemblies and brake hose end fittings. Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, se ts forth requirements for a vehicle's throttle. Also, Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, includes requirements related to the steering wheel, brakes, and throttle. If the Pierakos, or Jaeger, have any specific requests for interpretation of these or other applicable safety standards, we would be happy to respond to such requests.

I note that one of the enclosures included with Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos' letter is a drawing from Jaeger which includes the following statement: "This document contains proprietary information and it shall not be used or reproduced or its contents disclosed in part or whole without prior written authorization." Since the drawing could become subject to a request for release under the Freedom of Information Act, I am returning to you the copy of the drawing included with your letter.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely

Enclosures

ID: nht89-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/89

FROM: VICTOR CRISCI

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 14, 1990 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA TO VICTOR CRISCI; A35; STD. 108

TEXT: I was given your name by a person who's in my motorcycle club.

I intend to install a Safety Light Flasher on my motorcycle and I would like to know whether it would be in conflict in anyway with U.S. DOT regulations.

My motorcycle is now equipped with a headlight on/off switch and a dimmer switch (hi/lo beam).

Operation of headlight with safety flasher installed

If headlight is on, the safety flasher flashes the headlight between high and low beam for 2-4 seconds then returns the light to it's original state (hi/lo beam).

If the headlight switch is off, the light flasher automatically turns the light on, flashes the headlight between hi/lo beam for 2-4 seconds then returns the light to it's original state (hi/lo beam).

In both of the above cases the sequence is initiated by pressing the horn button only. As an option the flasher can be initiated by a seperate non-horn switch.

I want to install this device because it will significantly inprove my rider safety. It will allow me automatic "forward recognition" because the vast majority of accidents occur when bikers are "not visable" to motorists who are making left turns in front of them, pulling out of driveways shopping centers and changing lanes etc.

I feel the device should not be in conflict with DOT regulations because no new switches or lights are added to the vehicle and the operation of the headlight is done automatically in a way which is now done manually and legally.

Your reply will be appreciated.

P.S. Please sent me a copy of STD 108

ID: nht89-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/29/89

FROM: SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT

TO: ERNEST F. HOLLINGS -- CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/24/89 EST; FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL E. KASINER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION; REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 204; LETTER DATED 08/01/89 FROM MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATI ON; TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT, OCC 3809; LETTER DATED 08/26/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO TAK FUJITANI

TEXT: Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter, co-signed by other members of the Senate Commerce Committee, concerning the issuance of certain safety standards for light trucks and vans ("LTV's"), including sport utility vehicles. I share your interest in ensuring that occ upants of these vehicles are well protected. As I stated in my confirmation hearing, I place a high priority on the safety of all our transportation systems including motor vehicles used for personal travel. I wish to assure you that the Department is moving expeditiously to improve vehicle safety, including rulemaking for additional LTV safety standards.

The Department has carefully reviewed those passenger-car safety standards which do not currently apply to LTV's, as evidenced by our reports to Congress in May 1987 and April 1988. As noted in those reports, we are committed to prompt rulemaking action s and decisions. Specifically, the Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has already issued Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to require both head restraints and rear-seat lap/should belts in LTV's, and an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to require side-impact protection in LTV's. In addition, NHTSA is currently preparing an NPRM to establish a minimum roof-crush resisance standard for LTV's.

In each of these four areas -- head restraints, side-impact protection, roof-crush resistance, and rear-seat lap/shoulder belts -- I expect to begin discussions within the Administration during the next 90 days on our recommendations for the next rulemak ing actions to be taken. These discussions will also address an NPRM to require automatic occupant protection for LTV's. I will advise you of the conclusion of these discussions.

NHTSA is also analyzing the research on how to enhance brake light performance on these vehicles, and expects to make a decision on requiring additional stop lamps by the end of the summer. Lastly, NHTSA has already granted a petition for rulemaking to d evelop a rollover protection standard and has a comprehensive data collection and research program under way to provide the basis for an effective regulation. Most of that research should be completed by year's end, and I assure you that we will not tol erate delays in the research schedule.

We note that the Department has initiated these and other vehicle safety rulemaking proceedings under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which provides a solid, effective, legal framework for these activities. Therefore, we do not believe that specific legislative mandates and timetables for LTV rulemaking projects are necessary or appropriate.

In closing, I appreciate your concern for improving the safety of vehicles and highway travel. Please be assured that this Department will continue to take whatever actions are needed to assure further progress in highway safety.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/29/89

FROM: DAVID W. RANEY -- ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES MANAGER SAAB SCANIA OF AMERICA INC

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/12/89 FROM STEPHEN WOOD OF NHTSA TO DAVID RANEY OF SAAB; REDBOOK A34, PART 541, 543

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Saab-Scania of America and Saab-Scania AB of Sweden (hereafter collectively referred to as Saab) respectfully request an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541 -- Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard and 49 CFR Part 543 -- Exemption From Vehicle Th eft Prevention Standard. Our specific questions are as follows:

(1) Does Part 543 exempt a manufacturer from marking replacement parts (Part 541.6) on a carline subject to Part 541 when many of the carline replacement parts specified in Part 541.5(a) can also be used to replace parts on the same carline manufactured in earlier model years which were parts-marked in compliance with Part 541?

(2) Can a manufacturer of a carline subject to Part 541 and in receipt of a Part 543 exemption for the carline resume vehicle and replacement parts marking if it chooses to discontinue equipping the carline with a Part 543 approved anti-theft device in a future model year?

By way of background, the Saab 9000 carline -- introduced in 1986 -- is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. In 1987 and 1988, all Saab 9000 models and replacement parts were marked in compliance with Part 541.

For model year 1989 Saab 9000 models, Saab received a Part 543 exemption and discontinued vehicle parts marking. However, Saab has continued to mark the replacement parts specified in Part 541.5 (a).

After reviewing the federal regulations, Saab believes that the Part 543 exemption allows it to discontinue marking the replacement parts for the 1989 Saab 9000 carline even though the replacement parts can also be used to replace parts on Saab 9000 mode ls manufactured in previous model years which were parts-marked in compliance with Part 541.

Also, Saab believes it retains the right in a future model year to discontinue equipping the Saab 9000 carline with a Part 543 approved anti-theft device for whatever reasons and resume vehicle and replacement parts marking. Saab seeks the NHTSA's concu rrence on both these points.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 29, 1989

FROM: SUSAN BIRENBAUM -- ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 5-25-90 TO SUSAN BIRENBAUM FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD (A35; VSA 102(4)); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-1-90 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM SUSAN BIRENBAUM AND LETTER DATED 10-12-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM DAVID SCHMELTZER TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance in determining whether a product manufactured by Nationwide Industries, Inc., and marketed under the brand names "SNAP fix-a-flat FOR PICK-UP TRUCKS," "SNAP fix-a-flat," and "SNAP super fix-a-flat" is an item of "m otor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined by section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act (15 U.S.C. SS 1391(4)). Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. SS 2052(a)(1)(C)) excludes "Motor vehicle equ ipment from those "consumer products" which are subject to the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission under the CPSA.

The product in question is sold for inflating and temporarily repairing flat tires. It consists of a container which holds liquid latex and a propellant of pressurized gas. Photographs of the containers and the labeling of the product are enclosed.

As stated on the labels, the propellant gas used for this product is extremely flammable. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has received reports of deaths and serious injuries associated with ignition of the gas from this product contained in tires which were being repaired, usually at a garage or service station. In all but one instance known to the Commission, the person injured was a mechanic or other employee of a repair facility and not the owner of the tire being repaired.

Although the product appears to be intended primarily for use with cars and trucks, the labeling on some containers suggests that the product could be used on tires of bicycles, tractors, and off-road all-terrain vehicles. See photographs A3, C1, C3, D1 , D2, and D3.

Section 6(b) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. SS 2055(b)), requires that before the Commission may release information about a product identified by manufacturer, it must first provide the manufacturer of the product with a summary of the information and an opport unity to comment on its accuracy. However, section 29(e) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. SS 2078(e)) authorizes the Commission to provide information about products to other agencies of the Federal Government without having followed the procedure required by sec tion 6(b), provided that the agency receiving the information does not disclose it to the general public.

The information in this letter about the product under consideration is subject to the provisions of section 6(b) of the CPSA. The Commission has not provided the manufacturer with either a summary of this

information or the opportunity to comment on its accuracy. For this reason, I request your assistance in not disclosing it to the general public.

If you need additional information about this inquiry, please call Allen F. Brauninger of this office at 492-6980.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Enclosures