ID: aiam2295

Dear Mr. Watson: I am writing to confirm your April 29, 1976, telephone conversatio with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the modification work that you perform on Datsun pick- up trucks. I understand that this modification involves removal of the body from a fully certified truck and replacement of the body with a flat bed.; You are a vehicle alterer who is subject to the requirements of 49 CF S 567.7 (copy enclosed). That section requires that you affix a label to the vehicle stating that, *as altered*, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If any of the original vehicle's weight ratings are affected by the modification, the modified weight ratings must also appear on this label. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, 'Gross Vehicle Weight Rating' is defined in 49 CFR S 571.3 as:; >>>the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of single vehicle.<<<; One constraint on this specification is found in S 567.4(g)(3) of 4 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, which requires that the GVWR; >>>shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rate cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. . . .<<<; 'Gross Axle Weight Rating' is defined as: >>>the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.<<<; As one who alters completed vehicles but does not otherwise manufactur motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that is subject to a safety standard, you are not required to submit the information specified in 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*.; Enclosed for your convenience is an information sheet entitled 'Wher to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.' If you have any further questions, please feel free to write.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4673

Dear Mr. Showhite: This replies to your letters asking for determination 'that the sale into the aftermarket as well as aftermarket installation of the Advanced Brake Light Device ('ABLD')...would not violate' any of this agency's statutes or regulations. As you have described it, the ABLD 'consists of a sensor attached to the accelerator pedal that senses the rate at which the foot releases the accelerator pedal. This signal is sent to a processor unit, which determines whether the brake lights should be turned on, and the duration of the illumination until the brake is applied. The ABLD is set so that the brake light will go off unless the brake is applied within one second of the ABLD's activation....' You believe that this avoids providing a misleading signal. You further indicate the manufacturer's willingness to alter the time interval if NHTSA's favorable opinion is required for it. You have not defined the term 'aftermarket', but we shall assume that you mean sales to vehicle owners of equipment for installation on their vehicles (as contrasted with sales to dealers for installation on new vehicles before their delivery). There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to the system described in your letter. This means that there are no Federal restrictions upon the importation, manufacture, or sale of the ABLD. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (specifically, l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), as you surmise, modifications to vehicles by a person other than the vehicle owner are permissible as long as they do not 'render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device...installed on...a motor vehicle...in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....' The essential question then is whether the installation of the ABLD renders partially or wholly inoperative the vehicle's stop lamps. As you know, in our interpretations on lighting equipment, we have noted a close relationship between the statute's rendering inoperative prohibition for the aftermarket with the standard's impaired effectiveness prohibition for supplementary original equipment. Primarily, maintaining that relationship is done in order to avoid regulatory inconsistency with interpretations under which installation of an item of aftermarket equipment might be deemed acceptable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, while its installation as original equipment would violate Standard No. 108. There are two types of supplementary original, or aftermarket, lighting equipment: those that operate independently of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires, and those that operate in connection with that equipment. A separate red rear fog lamp would be an example of the former. The ABLD is an example of the latter, because it has a direct effect upon the operation of the stop lamp. An aftermarket device that has an effect upon the operation of required lighting equipment cannot be deemed permissible unless that effect is consistent with the operation and purpose of the required equipment. As you stated, the SAE defines a stop lamp as one whose function indicates 'the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking'. You have argued that 'The ABLD is consistent because it 'clearly and unambiguously indicates' an operator's intent to apply the brake. Your client, however, does not make that claim for the ABLD, it concedes that 'there will be circumstances in which the brake will not be engaged after the ABLD is activated.' The heart of our concern is that while the standard requires the stop lamp to operate in only one particular circumstance, the ABLD causes the stop lamp to operate at an earlier time when the lamp is supposed to be unlighted. Further, the ABLD's activation of the stop lamp indicates only that the operator has released the accelerator. It does not necessarily follow that the brake pedal will later be applied. Under this fact situation, the stop lamps fulfill a purpose other than for which they are installed. This can only create the potential for confusion and dilution of the effectiveness of the stop signal. For the reasons stated above, we have concluded that installation of the ABLD in the aftermarket would render the stop lamps partially inoperative. Because this conclusion does not depend upon whether the ABLD would be acceptable using the different parameters of performance to which it is apparently capable of being adjusted, there appears to be no reason to discuss this matter with you before completion of this interpretation, which would further delay our response. We would like to discuss several other points. You have stated that 'Illuminations of the brake lights for one second or less occur frequently during normal driving without the ABLD', and have sought to allay our concerns with the manufacturer's willingness to reduce the stop lamp activation time from one second to something less if that is required for a favorable interpretation. You have also provided information that the ABLD comes into operation only when the foot is released from the pedal at a rate consistent with an intent to apply the brake, as in an emergency situation. While we appreciate these arguments, we do not find them persuasive. The short periods of illumination to which you refer are occasioned by application of the brake pedal, no matter how brief that application is. The offer to reduce the activation time of the ABLD if it is not followed by a brake application would reduce but not eliminate stop lamp activation for purposes other than to indicate a stop or diminished speed. As for foot-movement time, there appears to be no indication in the University of Michigan study that you submitted that the ABLD was activated in traffic emergencies. The foot-movement time measurements seem consistent with removal of the foot from the accelerator under ordinary traffic situations, and thus there should have been no instances of ABLD activation. Your most recent letter contained a copy of a report of an independent field study of the ABLD in Israel, which 'found that rear-end accidents were reduced by 75 percent.' However, the report states that the ABLD-equipped vehicles ('except a few') were also equipped with center high-mounted stop lamps. Since any reductions in rear-end accidents that were experienced by the test fleets cannot be attributed solely to the ABLD, the data must be viewed as inconclusive. The acceptability for use of the ABLD must also be determined under the laws of the individual States. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you get in touch with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for further advice. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4682

Dear Mr. Snowhite: This replies to your letters asking for determination 'that the sale into the aftermarket as well as aftermarket installation of the Advanced Brake Light Device ('ABLD')...would not violate' any of this agency's statutes or regulations. As you have described it, the ABLD 'consists of a sensor attached to the accelerator pedal that senses the rate at which the foot releases the accelerator pedal. This signal is sent to a processor unit, which determines whether the brake lights should be turned on, and the duration of the illumination until the brake is applied. The ABLD is set so that the brake light will go off unless the brake is applied within one second of the ABLD's activation...' You believe that this avoids providing a misleading signal. You further indicate the manufacturer's willingness to alter the time interval if NHTSA's favorable opinion is required for it. You have not defined the term 'aftermarket', but we shall assume that you mean sales to vehicle owners of equipment for installation on their vehicles (as contrasted with sales to dealers for installation on new vehicles before their delivery). There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to the system described in your letter. This means that there are no Federal restrictions upon the importation, manufacture, or sale of the ABLD. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (specifically, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), as you surmise, modifications to vehicles by a person other than the vehicle owner are permissible as long as they do not 'render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device...installed on...a motor vehicle...in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....' The essential question then is whether the installation of the ABLD renders partially or wholly inoperative the vehicle's stop lamps. As you know, in our interpretations on lighting equipment, we have noted a close relationship between the statute's rendering inoperative prohibition for the aftermarket with the standard's impaired effectiveness prohibition for supplementary original equipment. Primarily, maintaining that relationship is done in order to avoid regulatory inconsistency with interpretations under which installation of an item of aftermarket equipment might be deemed acceptable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, while its installation as original equipment would violate Standard No. 108. There are two types of supplementary original, or aftermarket, lighting equipment, those that operate independently of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires, and those that operate in connection with that equipment. A separate red rear fog lamp would be an example of the former. The ABLD is an example of the latter, because it has a direct effect upon the operation of the stop lamp. An aftermarket device that has an effect upon the operation of required lighting equipment cannot be deemed permissible unless that effect is consistent with the operation and purpose of the required equipment. As you stated, the SAE defines a stop lamp as one whose function indicates 'the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking'. You have argued that 'the ABLD is consistent because it 'clearly and unambiguously indicates' an operator's intent to apply the brake. Your client, however, does not make that claim for the ABLD, it concedes that 'there will be circumstances in which the brake will not be engaged after the ABLD is activated.' The heart of our concern is that while the standard requires the stop lamp to operate in only one particular circumstance, the ABLD causes the stop lamp to operate at an earlier time when the lamp is supposed to be unlighted. Further, the ABLD's activation of the stop lamp indicates only that the operator has released the accelerator. It does not necessarily follow that the brake pedal will later be applied. Under this fact situation, the stop lamps fulfill a purpose other than for which they are installed. This can only create the potential for confusion and dilution of the effectiveness of the stop signal. For the reasons stated above, we have concluded that installation of the ABLD i the aftermarket would render the stop lamps partially inoperative. Because this conclusion does not depend upon whether the ABLD would be acceptable using the different parameters of performance to which it is apparently capable of being adjusted, there appears to be no reason to discuss this matter with you before completion of this interpretation, which would further delay our response. We would like to discuss several other points. You have stated that 'illuminations of the brake lights for one second or less occur frequently during normal driving without the ABLD', and have sought to allay our concerns with the manufacturer's willingness to reduce the stop lamp activation time from one second to something less if that is required for a favorable interpretation. You have also provided information that the ABLD comes into operation only when the foot is released from the pedal at a rate consistent with an intent to apply the brake, as in an emergency situation. While we appreciate these arguments, we do not find them persuasive. The short periods of illumination to which you refer are occasioned by application of the brake pedal, no matter how brief that application is. The offer to reduce the activation time of the ABLD if it is not followed by a brake application would reduce but not eliminate stop lamp activation for purposes other than to indicate a stop or diminished speed. As for foot-movement time, there appears to be no indication in the University of Michigan study that you submitted that the ABLD was activated in traffic emergencies. The foot-movement time measurements seem consistent with removal of the foot from the accelerator under ordinary traffic situations, and thus there should have been no instances of ABLD activation. Your most recent letter contained a copy of a report of an independent field study of the ABLD in Israel, which 'found that rear-end accidents were reduced by 75 percent.' However, the report states that the ABLD-equipped vehicles ('except a few') were also equipped with center high-mounted stop lamps. Since any reductions in rear-end accidents that were experienced by the test fleets cannot be attributed solely to the ABLD, the data must be viewed as inconclusive. The acceptability for use of the ABLD must also be determined under the laws of the individual states. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you get in touch with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for further advice. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3700

Dear Mr. Fialka: Ms. Lauretta Carlson of our Regional Office in Seattle has forwarded t us a copy of a letter to you dated April 21, 1983, from the Motor Vehicles Division, Department of Transportation, Oregon, with reference to the 'Conspicuity Package' on school buses. Oregon appears not to approve the white reflectors in this package. Ms. Carlson has asked us to respond directly to you.; The portions of the conspicuity package that trouble Oregon are th eight white reflex reflectors on the rear (installed on the extreme edge of the vehicle to define its height and width), and the seven white reflex reflectors on each side (defining the overall length and height of the bus). The Oregon letter says that the laws of that State allow only red and yellow reflectors to the rear and sides of the vehicle and it finds 'no indication that the white reflex reflectors are approved by the federal code.'; Paragraph S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10 permits the installation as original equipment of other lamps and reflectors not specified by the standard provided that the additional equipment does not 'impair the effectiveness' of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The agency therefore has no present basis for concluding that white reflectors 'impair the effectiveness' of red and yellow reflectors and lamps required by Standard No. 108. Thus, under Federal law, a school bus may be manufactured and sold with the white reflectors.; Further, use of white reflectors may aid safety. Although the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not conducted research on improving the conspicuity of school buses, it has contracted for a study of that issue with respect to large vehicles of similar sizes such as trucks and tractor-trailer combinations. The preliminary results indicate that outlining the sides and rear of large vehicles with red and white reflex striping is the best way to improve conspicuity, verification awaits field tests which have not been scheduled to date. Use of white reflectors, while not as effective as red and white striping, probably enhances conspicuity.; The use of a bus with these reflectors, however, is subject to Orego law. Although under Federal law a State may not have a vehicle safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal vehicle safety standard unless it is identical to it, the white reflectors are not required by a Federal standard and are thus subject to regulation by any State in which the school bus is registered.; I hope that this letter provides a satisfactory clarification. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 18464.ztv

Mr. Ralf Wohl
EMB Incorporated
6780 Depot Street
Sebastopol, CA 95472

Dear Mr. Wohl:

This is in reply to your fax of July 29, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to your electric motorcycle.

Your first question is whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays requires a motorcycle to be equipped with a supplemental engine stop control. The answer is yes; as you have noted, S5.1 states that "Each motorcycle shall be equipped with a supplemental engine stop control, located and operable as specified in Table 1" (our emphasis). You have also asked whether the operation of your control, as you have described it, "is adequate for this purpose." As you have also noted, "Operation - Column 3" of Table 1 is blank. This means that Standard No. 123 does not specify how the supplemental engine stop control shall be operated. This choice is left to the manufacturer but obviously it must be a control that provides an alternative means of stopping the engine. On your electric motorcycle, the primary stop control is the twist grip handlebar on which the throttle is returned to the off position. If the throttle sticks in the open position, the propulsion system may also be overriden and deactivated by application of the brakes. We view this as a "supplemental engine stop control" within the general meaning of the term.

You also tell us of your wish to manufacture motorcycles for a limited time using "an off the shelf 28V military headlamp that does not meet all the photometric requirements for a motorcycle per FMVSS 571.108," and ask whether a waiver is possible. I enclose a copy of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555) under which manufacturers of motor vehicles, including motorcycles, may apply for temporary exemptions from one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, this process takes from three to four months because of the necessity to publish a notice in the Federal Register asking for comments on the application.

This may not be responsive to your situation since it is possible that your technical difficulties will be solved by then. Other than Part 555, we have no authority to grant a waiver from compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may call Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:123
d.11/12/98

ID: nht91-7.52

DATE: December 20, 1991

FROM: James C. Hansen -- Product Development, Model E Concepts

TO: Office of the Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/19/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to James Hansen (A39; Part 567)

TEXT:

In January 1992, we will begin an engineering study relating to a proposed alteration of a vehicle that has been previously certified in accordance with National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.).

More specifically, this proposed alteration would be conducted on new and used automobiles, vans, and pickups. The purpose of the alteration, is to convert these vehicles to a hybrid version of an electric powered highway vehicle, and to do so without infringing upon the safety provisions of the vehicle as it was originally manufactured. At the present time, our alteration plans include removal of the internal combustion engine and associated support components, and on certain vehicles it may include removal of the transmission. Light duty suspension and brake systems would be replaced with heavy duty factory components, when required, to accommodate the added weight of the battery pack. In addition, to strengthen the unibody for accommodating the added weight of the battery pack, and to provide attach points for the electric drive, aluminum beams would enclose the exposed uniframe members of the original structure. Our alterations do not include changing the body or frame by making any cuts into these original structures.

Our purpose in this endeavor is to eventually offer these types of vehicles for sale to fleet operators and the general public, while complying with all safety requirements. We are aware of the temporary exemptions from motor vehicle safety standards provided in Part 555 of the Act, but prefer, for resale purposes, to be in compliance of the original standards.

Prior to beginning this exercise, we would like to more clearly understand the provisions of the safety regulations. We understand the type of alterations we plan to conduct on new and used vehicles are covered in Part 567.7 - Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles. As I stated in the above paragraphs, we do not plan to make any changes to the original unibody structure, only to strengthen it for the additional weight of the battery pack. Therefore, we would only be adding additional weight to the vehicle, but not beyond the original Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) or Gross Axle Weight Ratings (GAWR). In addition, the center-of-gravity of the vehicle would possibly be changed depending upon the locations of the added weight. In referring to Part 567.7, we understand our only requirement, because of the change in vehicle weight, is to affix to the vehicle an additional label (as described) stating the modified GVWR, and GVAR.

We are requesting, based upon your interpretation of Part 567.7, if the vehicle, altered as described, would be in compliance of all NHTSA requirements.

If you require additional information regarding this matter, I would be happy to respond. Your attention to this request is appreciated!

ID: nht93-5.43

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Jennings

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/21/93 from Charles Jennings to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letter received in this Office on July 2, asking for an opinion of your invention, the Alternating Wavelength Low-Beam (AWL).

The AWL "connects to the already existing low beam headlights, by just plugging it between the electrical sockets and the lights." The effect of the device is to create "light modulations of less than 17 per second, alternating from one of the two existing low-beam headlights to the other, and at the same time, changing wavelengths slightly, from one to the other (not flashing on and off)."

We have no opinion on the safety merits of your invention but can provide you with an interpretation of its relationship to Federal law. The AWL appears intended as an aftermarket device. There are no Federal restrictions on the sale of this device. Nor is there any Federal restriction upon installation of the AWL when it is installed on a vehicle by its owner. Such an installation appears a distinct possibility from your brief description of it. At this point, the question of the legality of its use is determined under the laws of the States where the AWL is operated. You represent that its operation in Texas is acceptable to the Department of Public Safety. However, this opinion would not be binding on other States. We are unable to advise you on the legality of using the AWL in the various States and suggest that you ask for an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) prohibits most persons other than the owner (specifically, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses) from acts that may "knowingly render inoperative", in whole or in part, safety equipment that the vehicle manufacturer has added pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The lower-beam headlamps are original equipment installed by the vehicle manufacturer under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning in use, though means may be provided to flash them on and off automatically for signalling purposes. Because the modulation created by the AWL results in a headlamp beam that is neither steady burning nor an on-off signal flash, the vehicle's headlamp system would no longer be in compliance with Standard No. 108. In our view, the headlamp system's performance would have been rendered partially inoperative within the meaning of the Act's prohibition when the AWL is sold in the aftermarket and installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, and motor vehicle repair business. The Act provides for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the prohibition.

We hope that you find this information useful.

ID: 8832

Mr. Charles Jennings
1330 Heathwick Lane
Houston, TX 77043

Dear Mr. Jennings:

This responds to your letter received in this Office on July 2, asking for an opinion of your invention, the Alternating Wavelength Low-Beam (AWL).

The AWL "connects to the already existing low beam headlights, by just plugging it between the electrical sockets and the lights." The effect of the device is to create "light modulations of less than 17 per second, alternating from one of the two existing low-beam headlights to the other, and at the same time, changing wavelengths slightly, from one to the other (not flashing on and off)."

We have no opinion on the safety merits of your invention but can provide you with an interpretation of its relationship to Federal law. The AWL appears intended as an aftermarket device. There are no Federal restrictions on the sale of this device. Nor is there any Federal restriction upon installation of the AWL when it is installed on a vehicle by its owner. Such an installation appears a distinct possibility from your brief description of it. At this point, the question of the legality of its use is determined under the laws of the States where the AWL is operated. You represent that its operation in Texas is acceptable to the Department of Public Safety. However, this opinion would not be binding on other States. We are unable to advise you on the legality of using the AWL in the various States and suggest that you ask for an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) prohibits most persons other than the owner (specifically, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses) from acts that may "knowingly render inoperative", in whole or in part, safety equipment that the vehicle manufacturer has added pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The lower-beam headlamps are original equipment installed by the vehicle manufacturer under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning in use, though means may be provided to flash them on and off automatically for signalling purposes. Because the modulation created by the AWL results in a headlamp beam that is neither steady burning nor an on-off signal flash, the vehicle's headlamp system would no longer be in compliance with Standard No. 108. In our view, the headlamp system's performance would have been rendered partially inoperative within the meaning of the Act's prohibition when the AWL is sold in the aftermarket and installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, and motor vehicle repair business. The Act provides for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the prohibition.

We hope that you find this information useful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:8/2/93

ID: nht90-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/12/90

FROM: BARRY FELRICE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING

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

TITLE: ACTION: PORSCHE'S MODIFIED ANTITHEFT EXEMPTION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO MIKE LOVE -- PORSCHE, A 35 PART 543; LETTER DATED 03/30/90 FROM MIKE LOVE -- PORSCHE TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR ON 49 CFR PART 543 EXEMPTION

TEXT: On April 4, 1990, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche) submitted a request for approval of a modification to the existing antitheft device for the exempted MY 1990 Porsche 911 and 928 carlines.

Rulemaking has reviewed the changes submitted by Porsche, and finds that the system activation process as described by Porsche would not undermine the device and that it would qualify for de minimis treatment. Porsche has changed the antitheft system by allowing it to additionally monitor the glove box for opening. This means that if the glove box is opened while the system is armed, the alarm will be activated. Previously, the antitheft system would only monitor the vehicle's doors, hood, hatc, igni tion switch, and removal of its radio.

The system's alarm control unit will now be integrated with the central locking and interior light control units to save space and to simplify the vehicle's electrical system. Porsche's antitheft system will also now have the capability to accept other inputs such as motion sensors, and improved diagnostic capability to enhance serviceability.

The new system will continue to be armed by locking either the driver or passenger door with the ignition key. The same points of entry will continue to be monitored by the system and the disabling and alarm features will remain the same. The new syste m will also continue to be as protected and tamper resistant as the current system.

As stated above, Rulemaking does not believe that these changes are significant enough to warrant submission of a full modification petition by Porsche and, therefore, would qualify for de minimis treatment. Accordingly, Rulemaking requests a letter gra nting the change to the antitheft system be forwarded to Porsche, pursuant to Part 543.9(j).

Attachment Letter from Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

ID: nht81-1.36

DATE: 03/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 11 1981

Mr. Don Gerkin Product Engineer COSCO 2525 State Street Columbus IN 47201

Dear Mr. Gerkin:

This responds to your letter of January 8, 1981, concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether urethane foam can be used to meet the requirement of S5.2.3.2 of the standard. The answer is yes.

S5.2.3.2 provides, in part, that:

Each system surface . . . which is contactable by the dummy head when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1 shall be covered with slow-recovery, energy-absorbing material with the following characteristics . . . .(Emphasis added.)

The purpose of S5.2.3.2 is to require the use of material that will protect a child's head in an impact. To protect the child's head, the material must be capable of dissipating the force of the impact (i.e., energy-absorbing).

To prevent the use of material that will rebound immediately after impact or will not recover after one impact, the standard requires the use of slow-recovery material. That requirement acts as an additional safeguard to ensure that the material absorbs the energy of the impact to prevent injury and does not act as an energy storer or spring that, upon rebound, releases the full energy of the initial impact. In addition, the requirement prevents the use of material that cannot recover after being impacted once (e.g., styrofoam). As you pointed out, certain types of urethane foam can absorb energy and do not immediately recover or rebound after impact and are thus permissible.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

January 8, 1981

Dear Mr. Berndt:

When the Standard No. 213 Child Restraint Systems was published, one of my many tasks was to find a slow recovery, energy absorbing material to cover surfaces for compliance to head impact protection.

After an extensive search, we settled on using Ensolite Foam in our Child Restraints, a very expensive product compared to Urethane Foam. I have tried, without success, to obtain a definition of slow recovery, energy absorbing material from manufacturers as well as NHTSA.

It appears to me now that inexpensive Urethane Foam that meets the thickness and compression requirements would comply to the 213 Standard. Urethane Foam does absorb energy and recover - at some rate.

Assuming our Child Restraints pass all other criteria of the Standard, and we did use Urethane Foam, would we still be in compliance to the Standard?

As there would be a large savings to our company if we could make a turn-around from Ensolite to Urethane Foam, your prompt attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Don Gerken Product Engineer

rm