ID: nht93-4.42

DATE: June 23, 1993

FROM: Gail Lindsey -- Hillsborough County Public Schools, Risk Management & Safety Department, Tampa, Florida

TO: Ron Engles -- Safety Counter Measure Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 (est) from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Gail Lindsey (A41; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

This correspondence is a reply to our recent phone conversation concerning the transporting of school children to and from special events in any vehicle other than school buses.

In the past, it has been School Board policy to disallow the use of mini-vans on such events. I am requesting any information on the crash safety standards of such vehicles, or any recommendations that your office may give so that we can make a safe and fair determination on this current policy.

Any assistance you can give will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht91-6.3

DATE: September 18, 1991

FROM: Al Lipinski -- President, Mini-Max

TO: Hall, Jackson, Rice -- NATSA (NHTSA), Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Al Lipinski (A38; Std. 108; Part 567)

TEXT:

I talked with Steve Kratzke on September 18, 1991 regarding the Dynamic Testing requirements for alterers of certified vehicles.

We are a small conversion company of walk in van type light trucks located in Escanaba, MI. Our projected production for 1992 is 75 vehicles. We do not alter anything forward of the B pillar of a certified vehicle, thus the crash protection system installed by the original manufacturer is not disturbed. We afix an additional label stating the vehicle alterations conform to all applicable FMVSS.

I would appreciate a letter stating what the dynamic testing requirements are for an alterer of a certified vehicle for my files in case this question arises in the future.

ID: nht79-2.39

DATE: 06/20/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. H. Latshaw, Jr., Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1979, to John Womack of this office on behalf of your client Ennova, Inc. Ennova wishes to market a "back rack carrier", and you have asked several questions with respect to its legality under Federal requirements. The photographs which you enclosed show that the carrier structure is attached to both the front and rear bumpers, and that loads may be carried on the top of the vehicle as well as on a shelf directly behind the vehicle's rear bumper.

Your questions and our answers are:

"1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned motor vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is pre-empted?

2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining to roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?"

An equipment carrier that attaches to a motor vehicle is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), and your client is a "manufacturer" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(5). There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that cover this type of motor vehicle equipment, and, therefore, a State is not preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) from prescribing its own safety standards for it. If a safety related defect were discovered in the "Back Rack", Ennova would be responsible for notification and remedy of it, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.

"3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumpers or fenders which the Back Rack T.M. Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any Federal standards?

The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in a semi-permanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? Is so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?

4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier present a problem?

5. The structural supports of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier obscure the vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

8. If the Back Rack T.M. Carrier as it appears in the photographs were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment."

Your questions concern our jurisdiction over a vehicle before and after its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. A dealer has the responsibility to deliver to its owner a new vehicle in full compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of any "additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment . . . that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." Paragraph S4.3.1 requires that "no part of the vehicle shall prevent a parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp, turn signal lamp, or backup lamp from meeting its photometric output at any applicable group of test points specified in Figures 1 and 3 [Standard No. 108], or prevent any other lamp from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable "SAE Standard on Recommended Practice". Therefore, a dealer could not deliver a new car with the Back Rack installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the car's lamps or reflectors or impairs photometric output. After sale, a dealer (or distributor or manufacturer, but not the vehicle owner) has a responsibility under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) of not "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." In the context of Standard No. 108 we have equated a rendering inoperative with impaired effectiveness or impaired photometrics so that the same consideration would apply; a dealer could not install the Back Rack on a used vehicle if it affects compliance with Standard No. 108.

The installation of the Back Rack appears to present some compliance problems. Based upon an informal review and the photographs you submitted, the front part of the carrier may reduce headlamp candlepower output below the required minimum at several test points, as for example, at test points HV, H-3R and 3L and H 9R and 9L on the upper beam, and at test points 1 1/2 D-2R, 1/2 D-1 1/2 R on the low beam.

Looking at the turn signals which are required to have an 8.0 square inch minimum projected luminous area, the carrier support design may mask them to the extent that the direction of the turn signal might not be clearly understood. The carrier support location may not allow these lamps to provide an unobstructed effective projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, of at least 2 square inches, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. This requirement must also be met by the taillamps. Further with respect to the taillamps, with the carrier in place, they may not be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left and/or right, as Standard No. 108 requires.

The design location of the carrier supports may reduce the minimum effective projected luminous area of the stop lamps below the 8 square inch minimum of Standard No. 108.

As for backup lamps, the visibility requirements are complex, those of SAE Standard J593c as modified by S4.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108, but in essence the lamps must be "readily visible" to use your phrase.

These interpretations are based upon the photographs you supplied, and are meant to be illustrative as there are many different lighting configurations on vehicles, and we do not know that the Back Rack would affect compliance in all instances.

"7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking, directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?"

Dimensional requirements of headlights conform to SAE J571d, Dimensional Specifications of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units, June 1966, parking lights, SAE J 222, Parking Lamps (Position Lamps) December 1970, directional lights (turn signals) SAE J588e, Turn Signal Lamps (Rear Position Light), August 1970. Copies of the foregoing SAE Standards are attached. In addition, the minimum and maxima of lens visibility requirements for parking lamps, turn signal lamps and taillamps are set forth in these SAE Standards. The minimum and maximum photometric requirements of headlights are set forth in SAE J 579a, August 1965 and J 579c, December 1974, as well as the design parameters of rectangular headlamps units SAE J 1132, Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles (copies also attached).

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

March 13, 1979

John Womack, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Transportation

Re: The Back Rack T.M. Carrier by Ennova, Inc.

Dear John:

I have taken the liberty of forwarding this letter and the enclosure herewith to you so that you may channel same to the proper individual for inspection. Your involvement in this matter will produce better results than if I sent the material to the Department generally.

Our client, Ennova, Inc., seeks to market and arrange for the distribution of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier to dealers for installation on privately owned motor vehicles. Prior to the production of the carrier, I would like to determine if the Department of Transportation can detect potential regulatory obstacles or other problems with the product. In addition, I would be pleased to entertain any suggestions which the Department may have.

I have enclosed six (6) photographs (two with detailed measurements) plus a letter explaining the Carrier written by the designer. Those materials are for the sole use of the Department of Transportation in its consultations with the above-referenced lawfirm. The information and specifications contained within the enclosures will be divulged to the public only upon the Department's receipt of a carefully constructed, detailed and specific request for same. This request must meet the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act before the Department is obligated to release the requested information.

My questions in reference to the Back Rack T.M. Carrier are as follows: 1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned motor vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is pre-empted?

2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining to roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?

3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumpers or fenders which the Back Rack T.M. Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any federal standards?

The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in a semi-permanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? If so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?

4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier present a problem?

5. The structural supports of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier obscure the vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act? In particular, does the Carrier violate in any manner the provisions of Section 103 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

6. What is the minimum amount of ascertainable candle power required to be visible from each vehicular light subsequent to sunset? Must back-up lights be readily visible?

7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking, directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?

8. If the Back Rack T.M. Carrier as it appears in the photographs were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment.

Please arrange for your Department to have someone consider the Carrier and these questions carefully. I would appreciate it if the Department would contact me personally or in writing with a concrete response to this inquiry within one (1) month.

If there are any procedures which I can follow to obtain a letter of approval indicating that the Carrier does not structurally violate any federal standard, please apprise me of same.

In addition, please forward me the name of the DOT representation assigned to respond to this inquiry.

Thank you for your kind cooperation in this matter.

John H. Latshaw, Jr.

ENCLS.

cc: RICHARD R. CHUTTER -- PRES., ENNOVA, INC.

PRODUCTION MODEL WILL BE 50 DEGREES

(Graphics omitted)

COPYRIGHT (C) Ennova. Inc. 1978

BACK RACK TM Carrier by Ennova

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 10194

August 26,
1994

Mr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director New York School Bus Distributors Association 102 Grace Street Penn Yan, NY 14527

Dear Mr. Kreutziger:

This responds to your facsimile transmittal letter to me of July 19, 1994.

Your letter referred to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), and asked whether emergency exits on school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and a passenger capacity of 2 to 16 seated and/or wheelchair positions, are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape as specified in paragraph S5.5.3(c) of the standard.

In 49 CFR 571.3, this agency defines a bus as a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a school bus as

[A] bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Whether or not a vehicle is a school bus, therefore, depends on its use (transporting the specified students) and seating capacity (more than 10), and not GVWR. Accordingly, if the seating capacity of a vehicle is 10 or less, it is not a bus and likewise not a school bus, regardless of use or GVWR. Such a vehicle would not be required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 217.

Vehicles meeting the definition of school bus would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 217. Section S5.5 of the standard, Emergency Exit Identification, specifies the marking

requirements for emergency exits on all buses. Sections S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 apply to non-school buses, while section S5.5.3 applies to all school buses, without regard to GVWR.

Paragraph S5.5.3(c) provides:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1.

We would like to emphasize two points with regard to your letter. The first is that only those emergency exits that are required by the standard are subject to this provision. Extra emergency exits added as options are encouraged, but not required, to be outlined with the tape. The other point is one that I made in a May 18, 1994 letter to you. A technical amendment is pending publication which will amend the size requirement for the width of the retroreflective tape, from a minimum of 3 centimeters (cm.) to a minimum of 2.5 cm. That amendment is necessary because retroreflective tape is not commercially available in 3 cm. widths. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape width size against a manufacturer who uses one inch wide (minimum 2.5 cm.) retroreflective tape.

In closing, bear in mind that all school buses are required to have a specified number of emergency exits, the number and location of which depend on the seating capacity of the vehicle, regardless of the GVWR, and all required emergency exits must be outlined with the retroreflective tape.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:217 d:8/26/94

ID: 11517WKM

Under Secretary
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Post Office Box 2944, Code No. 13030
Kuwait

Dear Mr. Under Secretary:

This responds to your letter of December 25, 1995, to the Department of Transportation asking about conformity certificates for tires. You stated that Ministerial Decree No. 3/82 of Kuwait states that every consignment of motor vehicle tires entering Kuwait should have a conformity certificate issued by an authorized body in the country of origin. You asked whether the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) is authorized to issue such certificates after testing in accordance with U. S. safety standards.

Please find enclosed a copy of a November 13, 1992, letter written to the Ministry by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which we described in detail the requirements for certification of tires under U.S. law. The requirements described in that letter are still in effect.

Briefly stated, U.S. law establishes a self-certification system in which tire manufacturers certify, normally based on testing and/or analysis, that their tires comply with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers must indicate their self-certification by marking the letters ADOT@ on the sidewalls of their tires. Under U. S. law, a manufacturer's self-certification is legally equivalent to a type approval under the law of a country whose conformance procedures rely upon type approval. We respectfully suggest that you recognize self-certification as a way of meeting Ministerial Decree No. 3/82, adjusting for the particulars of the U.S. system. There is precedent for regarding type approval and self-certification as equivalent in this context. Although neither the U.S. nor Kuwait are signatories to the UN/ECE AAgreement concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions@ (E/ECE/TRANS/505 Rev.2, 5 October 1995), we note that Article 1 of that agreement recognizes self-certification as an acceptable alternative to type approval.

All tires bearing the symbol ADOT@ are recognized by the United States as having been certified by the tire manufacturers as being in conformity with all applicable U.S. safety standards. There

is no provision in U.S. law for prior certification or approval by NHTSA, the U.S. agency responsible for the law=s implementation, or by any other entity. NHTSA monitors compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing tires in the retail market and testing them in accordance with test procedures specified in the standards. If a manufacturer's tires fail to meet applicable standards during NHTSA testing, the manufacturer is requested by NHTSA to provide any available test data and/or the results of any analysis underlying its certification. If the tires are ultimately determined to be in noncompliance with applicable standards, the manufacturer is required to conduct a notification and remedy campaign, known as a Arecall,@ to correct the problem at no cost to consumers.

In summary, U.S. law establishes a self-certification system in which tire manufacturers themselves certify that their tires comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, since conformance procedures for U.S. tire standards are based on self-certification instead of type approval, no independent body, governmental or nongovernmental, is authorized to issue conformity certificates with respect to U. S. tire safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any additional questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref: #109#119#574 d:3/19/96

ID: 3301yy

Mr. Robert A. Rogers, Director
Automotive Safety Engineering
Environmental Activities Staff
General Motors Corporation
General Motors Technical Center
30400 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48090-9015

Dear Mr. Rogers:

This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new antitheft device to be installed on the MY 1992 General Motors Pontiac Bonneville line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Pontiac Bonneville vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption. The agency has reviewed the changes to the system and for the following reasons concludes that the differences between the original system and one installed on the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville constitute a de minimis change.

As you are aware, the Pontiac Bonneville car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because General Motors showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This antitheft device is known as the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system. The exemption was issued on April 4, 1991, and appeared in the Federal Register on April 9, 1991 (56 FR 14413).

As was stated in the April 1991 Federal Register notice, the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system utilizes an ignition key, an ignition lock cylinder and a decoder module. Before a vehicle can be started, the electrical resistance of a pellet embedded in the shank of the key must be sensed by elements in the lock cylinder and its value compared to a fixed resistance in the decoder module.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1992, two design changes were made in the "PASS-KEY" antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Pontiac Bonneville. The new system on the Bonneville is known as "PASS-KEY II," and differs from "PASS-KEY" as follows. First, in "PASS-KEY II," if a key other than the one with proper resistance for the vehicle is inserted, the decoder module will shut down the fuel injector pulses to the engine for three minutes plus or minus eighteen seconds. In "PASS-KEY," this shut down period is two to four minutes. Second, if, during the time the decoder module has shut down in "PASS-KEY II," trial and error attempts are made to start the engine with various keys, the timer will not reset to zero, as is the case with "PASS-KEY." GM states that this difference in functions will provide a similar level of performance as "PASS-KEY" since the "PASS-KEY II" module, while shut down, will ignore further attempts to start the system by means other than use of a key with the proper resistance pellet. Any further unauthorized attempt after the initial three minute shut down time will result in the module shutting down again.

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. In addition to providing some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, "PASS-KEY II" also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for General Motors to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If General Motors does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter for MY 1992, we request that this agency be notified of such decisions.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking / ref:Part 543 d:2/7/92

ID: nht94-4.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York School Bus Distributors Association (Penn Yan, NY)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 7/19/94 from Richard Kreutziger to John Womack (OCC 10194)

TEXT:

This responds to your facsimile transmittal letter to me of July 19, 1994.

Your letter referred to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), and asked whether emergency exits on school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less that 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and a passenger capacity of 2 to 16 seated and/or wheelchair positions, are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape as specified in paragraph S5.5.3(c) of the standard.

In 49 CFR 571.3, this agency defines a bus as a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a school bus as

(A) bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportati on.

Whether or not a vehicle is a school bus, therefore, depends on its use (transporting the specified students) and seating capacity (more than 10), and not GVWR. Accordingly, if the seating capacity of a vehicle is 10 or less, it is not a bus and likewis e not a school bus, regardless of use or GVWR. Such a vehicle would not be required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 217.

Vehicles meeting the definition of school bus would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 217. Section S5.5 of the standard, Emergency Exit Identification, specifies the marking requirements for emergency exits on all buses. Sections S5.5.1 and S 5.5.2 apply to non-school buses, while section S5.5.3 applies to all school buses, without regard to GVWR.

Paragraph S5.5.3(c) provides:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 o f 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1.

We would like to emphasize two points with regard to your letter. The first is that only those emergency exits that are required by the standard are subject to this provision. Extra emergency exits added as options are encouraged, but not required, to be outlined with the tape. The other point is one that I made

in May 18, 1994 letter to you. A technical amendment is pending publication which will amend the size requirement for the width of the retroreflective tape, from a minimum of 3 centimeters (cm.) to a minimum of 2.5 cm. That amendment is necessary becau se retroreflective tape is not commercially available in 3 cm. widths. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape width size against a manufacturer who uses one inch wide (minimum 2.5 cm.) retroreflective tap e.

In closing, bear in mind that all school buses are required to have a specified number of emergency exits, the number and location of which depend on the seating capacity of the vehicle, regardless of the GVWR, and all REQUIRED emergency exits must be ou tlined with the retroreflective tape.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.18

DATE: February 7, 1992

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Rogers -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, EAS, GENERAL MOTORS

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert A. Rogers to Barry Felrice; Also attached to NHTSA memorandum dated 12/10/91 from Barry Felrice to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6741)

TEXT:

This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new antitheft device to be installed on the MY 1992 General Motors Pontiac Bonneville line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Pontiac Bonneville vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption. The agency has reviewed the changes to the system and for the following reasons concludes that the differences between the original system and one installed on the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville constitute a de minimis change.

As you are aware, the Pontiac Bonneville car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because General Motors showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This antitheft device is known as the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system. The exemption was issued on April 4, 1991, and appeared in the Federal Register on April 9, 1991 (56 FR 14413).

As was stated in the April 1991 Federal Register notice, the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system utilizes an ignition key, an ignition lock cylinder and a decoder module. Before a vehicle can be started, the electrical resistance of a pellet embedded in the shank of the key must be sensed by elements in the lock cylinder and its value compared to a fixed resistance in the decoder module.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1992, two design changes were made in the "PASS-KEY" antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Pontiac Bonneville. The new system on the Bonneville is known as "PASS-KEY II," and differs from "PASS-KEY" as follows. First, in "PASS-KEY II," if a key other than the one with proper resistance for the vehicle is inserted, the decoder module will shut down the fuel injector pulses to the engine for three minutes plus or minus eighteen seconds. In "PASS-KEY," this shut down period is two to four minutes. Second, if, during the time the decoder module has shut down in "PASS-KEY II," trial and error attempts are made to start the engine with various keys, the timer will not reset to zero, as is the case with "PASS-KEY." GM states that this difference in functions will provide a similar level of performance as "PASS-KEY" since the "PASS-KEY II" module, while shut down, will ignore further attempts to start the system by means other than use of a key with the proper resistance pellet. Any further unauthorized attempt after the initial three minute shut down time will result in the module shutting down again.

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. In addition to providing some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, "PASS-KEY II" also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for General Motors to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If General Motors does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter for MY 1992, we request that this agency be notified of such decisions.

ID: nht72-5.48

DATE: 11/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Dalmon Enterprises Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1972, in which you enclose a brochure describing your feed mover as requested by Mr. (Illegible Words), of my staff.

In (Illegible Word) of the material submitted would seem to indicate that your classification of the land owner as farm machinery is valid. We would not, therefore, consider it to be a "motor vehicle" within the (Illegible Word) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) based on the information furnished.

In addition to the Act (FL 87-563) and 49 C.F.R. 12.50, that you have requested, we are also enclosing Part 571 (formerly Part 371) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Of particular interest to you would be the interpretation on mini-bikes that set forth criteria to assist manufacturers in classifying their products insofar as off-road use is concerned.

If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht73-2.25

DATE: 03/15/73

FROM: B.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: WARREN M. HEATH -- DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TITLE: N41-34

TEXT: Dear Mr. Heath:

This is in reply to your letter of February 28th to Mr. Dougins W. Toms, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the mounting of lamps and reflectors on mini-pickup trucks.

The December 8, 1972, letter from Commissioner M. Pudinski was placed in Docket 69-19; Motion No. 3. We inadvertently failed to knowledge this action to Mr. Pudinski.

The visibility requirements of lamps and reflectors in Standard No. 100 are predicated on the normal driving or closed tail gate position. Since the use of motor vehicles, including driving with tail gates down or[Illegible word] lids open or otherwise having the lights and reflectors obscurred by a particular load on the vehicle, is under the jurisdiction of the individual states, we do not anticipate rule making on this subject.

Sincerely,