ID: nht91-4.3

DATE: May 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George D. Powley -- Project Engineer, Truck-Lite Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from George D. Powley to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6011)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 29, 1991, with respect to the orientation of electrical contact blades on sealed beam headlamps.

Truck-Lite would like to produce both a large rectangular Type 2B1 sealed beam headlamp and a small rectangular Type 2A1 headlamp using the same blade orientation. Specifically, you would like to use the 2B1 orientation on the 2A1 unit. You do not feel that this would affect adversely the lamp's "ability to interchange with existing lamps in motor vehicles presently in the field."

The basic dimensional requirements for sealed beam headlamps are set forth in SAE Standard J1383 APR85 Performance Requirements for Sealed Beam Headlamps, incorporated by reference in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. However, in reference to the Figures of J1383 which set forth the dimensions, "only those dimensions marked 'I' for interchangeability are applicable." (Section S7.3 of Standard No. 108). Our examination of the Figures indicate that the electrical contact blade orientation dimensions for Type 2A headlamps are marked "I", and thus must be met by Type 2A headlamps designed to comply with Standard No. 108. On the other hand, the contact blade orientation dimensions for Type 2B headlamps do not appear to be marked "I", and the manufacturer may depart from the ones indicated without violating Standard No. 108.

This means that you could not use a Type 2B1 blade orientation on a Type 2A1 headlamp as you wish. On the other hand, you could use the Type 2A orientation on the Type 2B, if you find it feasible to do so.

You also indicated that Koito is currently selling Type 2A1 headlamp with a non-standard contact blade orientation. I have forward a copy of this letter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for appropriate action. Thank you for calling this matter to our attention.

ID: nht91-4.30

DATE: June 26, 1991

FROM: Y. Endo -- Technical Manager, Hose Team, Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Inquiry for our Hydraulic brake hose assembly

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Y. Endo (A38; Std. 106)

TEXT:

Recently, we manufacture peculiar type of hose assemblies by our customer's request.

These hose assemblies are consisted of 2 or 3 pieces of cut hoses swaged permanetly with both ends fittings and intermediate metal fitting(s) which swaged and connected 2 pieces of cut hose at its both sides.

Please refer enclosed drawing and illustration. These assemblies are long in the whole length, but each cut hose is not loose in actual application, it is fixed by metal fitting to body side of vehicle. Please refer the illustration, the ones which be marked by red line is actually equipped example.

Concerning to the testing for these hose assemblies, there are diverse opinions in our company. FMVSS 106 specifies in its S 5.3.4 that "Tensile strength. A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall withstand a pull of 325 pound without separation of hose from its end fittings". While "Brake hose assembly" is specified that a brake hose, with or without armour, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system". Brake hose end fitting means a coupler, other than a clump, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose. SAE J 1401 also specifies, Brake Hose End Fitting - A coupling designed for permanent attachment to the ends of a brake hose by crimping or swaging.

Therefore, Imyself consider, Brake hose assembly shall be each one piece of hose with both ends fittings which be swaged permanently, that is 3 pieces hose multiple assembly shall be 3 Brake hose assembly.

In the Tensile strength test, multiple 3 pieces hose assembly shall be devided at each intermediate metal fitting, otherwise the test result comes to far from the real value, so I insist.

On the contrary, some one says, as far as 3 pieces hoses are connected as one assembly, the Tensile strength test shall be done as it is, only the both ends shall be fixed to the tester and pulled.

Imyself still insist, the Tensile strength test shall be done at each permanently swaged portion at the stand point of faithful interpretation to FMVSS and SAE specifications and to get accurate test result.

We can say, actual test operation is easy enough even the test of 3 devided tensile test.

Perhaps, these specifications are established without prediction of such multiple construction assembly at that time.

Then, we would like to ask your favour, please inform us your opinion or interpretation as soon as possible. This is suggested by Mr. George E. Walton, Director Safety Equipment Services of AAMVA , Arlington VA.

Thanking in advance and remain,

Attached to drawings of 2 and 3 piece hose assembly. (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-4.31

DATE: June 28, 1991

FROM: Dwayne R. Szot

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dwayne R. Szot (A38; Part 591)

TEXT:

I am writing to explain my situation regarding the importation of a Polish car, a Syrena, and to ask for special permission for this car to enter the United States. I am Dwayne R. Szot, a sculptor. I received my MFA from Cranbrook Arts Academy in 1989. The central theme of my work is the use of machinery as an expressive tool and a physical extension of ones'self. From October to June I was in Gdansk, Poland, working as an assistant sculpture instructor at the State Higher School of Fine Arts. It was during this time that I began the project known as "Kapsula Czasu" or "Capsule of Time." The capsule is the 10 year old Syrena that I mentioned. This car was painted red and white to resemble the Polish flag. It traveled throughout Poland collecting information and artifacts about peoples' hopes and dreams for the future, and their feelings about the past and the present. The car has been signed by hundreds of Poles. The objects placed within the car are, for the most part, private and will not be examined until the car is opened. These objects were, of necessity, shipped separately from the car, but will rejoin the car when it arrives. Objects within the car come from Solidarity, universities, school children, hospitals and politicians, the same people who signed or drew on the car. It was my original intention to entomb the car and leave it in Gdansk for 25 years, however, obtaining materials like the plexiglass necessary to encase the car, was impossible. It also became increasingly clear to me that the safety of the car could not be guaranteed. For example the present mayor of Gdansk could promise a safe place for the time capsule, but this promise would not be binding for the next mayor. This is a serious work. To have left the capsule in Poland would have been to risk its disappearance or destruction. I must say though, that the news of the cars' July 2 arrival came as a complete shock to my wife and myself. We had expected the car to be shipped in late August or early September, not June, and so we thought we had more time to prepare for its arrival.

Now, to outline my plans for the car in the U.S.. When the car arrives in New York, I will remove the engine to meet EPA approval. I view the car as being like an Egyptian sarcophagus in that it is not a car any more but a container, richly and artistically decorated. The car is not intended to be a mode of transportation on any highway or street, but to symbolize a journey through time. As a time traveler, it doesn't need an engine. There are practical considerations regarding this engine as well. This car can only go about 100 miles until it breaks down. Parts are difficult to get in Poland and would be impossible to get here and Syrena mechanics live a half a world away.

I would like to continue to collect information for the capsule from Poles living in the U.S.. This will be accomplished by transporting the car to Polish communities for scheduled showings. The car with its contents will then, be sealed in a plexiglass box marking the anniversary of Polands' first democratic election in November. The car will then be displayed at museums and art institutes but not removed from its box. Finally, after 25 years, the car will be returned to Poland and opened. In this way, the time capsule takes on international significance. I cannot claim to have a list of scheduled showings for the car yet, but I have begun contacting Polish-American organizations and various museums. I hope that I've convinced you that this car, Kapsula Czasu, is an art object and will not be driven or used for transportation. I realize that you would be allowing a very great exception by permiting the car to enter the U.S.. I have asked for professional letters of recommendation to be sent to you, knowing that you probably are not familiar with my work. I am also sending a copy of a newsletter put together by the children of one of the schools Kapsula Czasu visited. While you probably can't read this, and I don't know how well it will fax, you may still be interested in seeing it. My wife had a pleasant conversation with Mr. Taylor Vincent thursday about this matter, and we are hopeful. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Attachment A

Polish newspaper article regarding Kapsula Czasu (text and graphics omitted)

Attachment B

CRANBROOK ACADEMY OF ART

June 28, 1991

Chief Consul Paul Jackson Rice NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Dwayne Szot studied for two years at Cranbrook Academy of Art within the Sculpture Department and receive his Master of Fine Arts degree in May 1989.

During his two years at the Academy, I came to know Dwayne and his work well through student reviews and conversations that I had with him. He proved himself to be a hardworking and conscientious student. His work was imaginative and innovative.

Since leaving the Academy, I have kept in contact with Dwayne and followed the progress of his work. He has matured and has become a serious and dedicated artist.

Dwayne has spent the last nine months as a visiting artist in Poland. I look forward to seeing the work that he produced there.

Sincerely,

Roy Slade President

ID: nht91-4.32

DATE: June 28, 1991

FROM: Dale R. Thompson -- Executive Director, Anderson County Board for the Mentally Retarded and Developmentally Disabled

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dale R. Thompson (A38; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Per our recent phone conversation, I am contacting your office requesting FHTSA rulings on several transportation issues confronting my agency and the public school districts of Anderson County. These issues involve the transportation of handicapped children ages 3 and 4 that are officially classified as public school children under recent implementation of Public Law 99-457. Public Law 99-457 requires that public schools provide educational and related services. (including transportation) to eligible handicapped children. Prior to the implementation of this law, our agency has transported this population to and from our center based program for developmental and custodial care. We were not subject to FEDERAL or state PUBLIC SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION guidelines as these children were not, prior to implementation of Public Law 99-457, classified as public school children. As the fiscal demands of Public Law 99-457 are forcing a combined effort between my agency and the local public schools, we are evaluating the possibility of utilizing my agency's transportation vehicles to provide total or partial transportation assistance as a collaborative effort. However, prior to making such decisions all agencies and Boards involved feel a federal and state analysis for legal compliance are needed. I would appreciate your guidance or rulings on the following: (Note: The vehicles for proposed use are 15 passenger Dodge/ Chevy/Ford/GMC body types). 1. The vehicles our agency has previously purchased to transport this population prior to their public school age classification does not meet FMVSS/FHTSA standards as a "school bus". As we are proposing to utilize these vehicles to transport this population TO and FROM a public school facility for both education and custodial care, are our vehicles subject to any current, or proposed FHTSA requirements? Note 1. Each child will receive approximately 2 hours of educational services from the school system and 3-4 hours of custodial care per day at the same location.

2. Would these vehicles be subject to FHTSA/FMVSS requirements if they were only used to transport this population FROM the educational/ custodial location each afternoon (From school to home only). Note 2. After mid-morning public school services are completed, our agency will be providing afternoon custodial care prior to the return trip home.

3. What safety features are required of a "bus" in order to comply with FHTSA/FMVSS standards.

As I mentioned to you over the phone, I would appreciate as prompt a response as possible gives the onset of a new school year.

If you need additional information or clarification to assist your determination process, let me know.

ID: nht91-4.33

DATE: July 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard E. Wright -- Richard E. Wright Associates

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-3-91 from Richard E. Wright to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6005)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 3, 1991 concerning the possible applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to tempered glass products in travel trailers and motor homes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the situation to you.

Some background information may be useful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Glazing, as an "addition to the motor vehicle," is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment (Section 102(4) of the Safety Act). New glazing material for use in motor vehicles is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205). Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference "ANS Z26," American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways.

The agency has previously stated that Standard No. 205 does not apply to trailers, which our regulations define as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." Thus, the standard would not apply to travel trailers.

NHTSA covers motor homes under Standard No. 205. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing material for use in specified locations in motor vehicles, including motor homes. The agency has previously stated that the standard establishes requirements for glazing used in windows and interior partitions in motor vehicles. Glazing used in locations other than windows and interior partitions would not be subject to the requirements of the standard.

I hope that this information is useful to you. If you have further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

ID: nht91-4.34

DATE: July 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Mayeda -- Marketing and Sales Coordinator, GRE America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-4-87 from Erika Z. Jones to Robert J. Heath; Also attached to letter dated 9-21-89 from Stephen P. Wood to Jim Bowen; Also attached to letter dated 1-7-89 from Erika Z. Jones to Koji Tokunaga (Std. 101); Also attached to letter dated 5-6-91 from John Mayeda to the Department of Transportation, NHTSA (OCC 6034)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether there are any laws or regulations that govern car stereos. You asked this question in the context of a stereo system that you are considering developing. The stereo would include a built-in television monitor.

I note that your letter and an enclosed drawing are stamped "Proprietary Information." In a May 30, 1991 telephone conversation, Elizabeth Barbour of my staff advised you that all NHTSA interpretation letters are a matter of public record, and that all incoming requests are also made public unless confidential treatment is requested and granted. You indicated your understanding of this policy and stated that you did not wish to request that the materials you submitted be treated confidentially.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not have any safety standards specifically covering car stereos or television receivers. However, a car stereo or television receiver may include a source of illumination which is regulated by Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Further, the installation of a car stereo or television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with a number of safety standards. I have enclosed copies of three letters which discuss these and a number of other issues relating to the installation of radios or television receivers in motor vehicles. They include a June 4, 1987 letter addressed to Pansonic, a January 7, 1988 letter addressed to Isuzu, and a September 21, 1989 letter addressed to Gulf Stream Coach.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht91-4.35

DATE: July 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Cliff Chuang -- Chief Design Engineer, Prospects Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-1-91 from Cliff Chuang to Legal Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6009)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking clarification of recent amendments to Standard No. 118, Power-operated Window Systems (49 CFR S571.118), as published in the Federal Register on April 16, 1991. Specifically, you were interested in new requirements applicable to remote control operations of power windows. You first asked for confirmation of your interpretation of the new requirement in S5(a) that, while closing, remote control-operated power windows automatically reverse direction "when they meet a resistive force of 22 pounds or more." You also asked for an interpretation of the term "daylight opening" as it appears in S5(b) of Standard No. 118.

This agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the recent amendments to Standard No. 118 with respect to the automatic reversal requirements. In response to the petitions, NHTSA is currently reexamining several aspects of this requirement, including those raised in your letter. The agency will publish its response to the petitions for reconsideration in the Federal Register after it has finished its reexamination of the automatic reversal requirement in the April 16 final rule. Please let us know if you have any questions about this new automatic reversal requirement after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ID: nht91-4.36

DATE: July 1, 1991

FROM: David R. Stepp -- Stein Shostak Shostak & O'Hara

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- General Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Greg Long -- Escargot Motor Cars, Inc.

TITLE: Escargot Motorcars, Inc. - Reimportation of Previously Imported Automobiles

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to David R. Stepp (A38; Part 591; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

On behalf of our client, Escargot Motorcars, Inc. (Escargot) of Toronto, Canada, we hereby request written approval for the reimportation into the United States of Volkswagen Beetles previously imported into the United States in their respective years of manufacture which have been sent to Mexico for refurbishment. This processing operation is prospective in nature and Escargot will not proceed until written assurances are received from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

FACTS:

In the United States, Escargot intends to purchase titled Volkswagen Beetles, last available in 1979, which were previously imported into the United States by Volkswagen of America. At the time of original purchase, each automobile complied with all laws and regulations applicable to that year of manufacture.

The automobiles will be shipped to Mexico for refurbishment after having been registered by Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) at the border with the United States Customs Service by a licensed customhouse broker. In Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with an original Volkswagen replacement engine of 1,600 cc displacement. The body, all sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be restored or replaced with replacement parts and will be exactly as those original to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture. A catalytic converter will be installed to meet or surpass U.S. emission standards in effect for the particular vehicle's year of manufacture.

Upon reimportation into the United States, all applicable customs duties will be paid. During the refurbishment in Mexico, the original frame/chassis is preserved on each automobile. The original VIN, which is physically stamped onto the frame/chassis, is also preserved and is easily readable for Customs inspection. Some of the original Volkswagen as exported to Mexico will possess the manufacturer's certification disk on the door post which shows the year of manufacture and confirms the satisfaction of all requirements of that date. In other automobiles whose bodies are worn or damaged, the entire bodies may be replaced and/or painted and this manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed.

For certain vehicles with extensively damaged bodies, Escargot is contemplating stripping the bodies from the chassis in the United States prior to exportation to Mexico.

Escargot will keep detailed records of all restoration processes and will take photographs to confirm the processing performed in Mexico.

LAW & DISCUSSION:

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for passenger cars and equipment are applicable to automobiles manufactured on or after the dates of the various provisions (49 C.F.R. Part 571). Thus, any previously imported Volkswagen Beetle will be required to meet all FMVSS for its respective model year, i.e., a 1968 Volkswagen Beetle must satisfy FMVSS 101-107, 109-11, 116, 201, 203-11, and 301.

For automobiles where the FMVSS apply, a manufacturer's certification must be permanently affixed to the motor vehicle. Under 49 C.F.R. Sec. 567, this certification must contain the name of the manufacturer, month and year of manufacture, "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating," "Gross Axle Weight Rating," the VIN, the type classification of the vehicle, and a statement that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture.

In addition, an importer must file a declaration in accordance with 49 C.F.R. 591.5. In particular, Sec. 591.5(b) provides that the declaration must state that the imported vehicle conforms with all applicable safety standards, bumper, and theft prevention standards. A certification label or tag to that effect must be permanently affixed by the original manufacturer to the vehicle. See also 19 C.F.R. Sec. 12.80(b)(1), where Customs states its procedures for implementing the NHTSA declaration requirements.

Against this background, the Volkswagen Beetles which Escargot proposes to refurbish in Mexico and reimport into the United States should be allowed reentry by NHTSA. The automobiles will be restored to a point which actually exceeds the standards necessary for the model years of the motor vehicles. For example, a Volkswagen Beetle imported in 1968 will be fitted with a catalytic convertor, a device originally not required for that model year. Where the manufacturer's certification on the doorpost is preserved after restoration in Mexico, the vehicles clearly should be allowed to enter the United States without further certification.

In addition, we maintain that further certification is also not necessary for motor vehicles which may require body restoration so extensive that the doorpost which contains the manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed. Since the original frame and VIN is retained throughout the restoration process, the refurbished Volkswagen Beetle will be recognized as a motor vehicle by its title which was previously imported and which complied with all applicable laws and regulations. The fact that a doorpost containing the certification is replaced or repainted should not nullify the manufacturer's certification. NHTSA, through the U.S. Customs recordation of the VIN at the border, has sufficient means to insure that a vehicle which is sent from the United States to Mexico will

be the same one returned to the United States after restoration. Similarly, vehicles which are stripped of their bodies prior to shipment to Mexico should be allowed entry without further certification since the chassis will be preserved and registered.

Although not controlling in the United States, Transport Canada's enforcement position with respect to the importation of restored Volkswagen Beetles into Canada is relevant. Under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Act, vehicles manufactured or rehabilitated on used chassis or floor pans are not subject to its provisions. This position is based on the concept that the chassis is the integral part of the vehicle and is thus the only component which must be retained.

In conclusion, NHTSA should determine that Volkswagen Beetles previously imported into the United States and restored in Mexico should be allowed entry into the United States without further certification. The proposed restoration performed in mexico is no different than that which is currently done in the United States with original Volkswagen Beetles. The original chassis of each Volkswagen is retained and the VIN is preserved throughout the refurbishment operations. The registration of the vehicles by VIN at the Mexican border provides a sufficient method to insure the integrity of the automobiles upon reimportation. Accordingly, we respectfully request NHTSA's approval for the reimportation of Escargot's refurbished vehicles.

We look forward to your earliest possible response to this inquiry. Should you need any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht91-4.37

DATE: July 3, 1991

FROM: Michael D. Incorvaia -- Manufacturing Engineering Manager, Wagner Lighting

TO: NHTSA -- Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: Re Request for Letter of Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael D. Incorvaia (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Wagner Lighting is requesting an interpretation on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108 per the documentation that follows.

All responses by NHTSA to this request should be addressed to:

Michael D. Incorvaia Manufacturing Engineering Manager Wagner Lighting P.O. Box 4650 Sevierville, TN 37864.

Wagner Lighting, a manufacturer of automotive and truck turn signal and hazard warning flashers for more than thirty years, requests a letter of interpretation from NHTSA concerning FMVSS 108. Per 49 CFR 512 4b3i, Wagner Lighting wishes to keep this request confidential because this concept is a trade secret.

Per 512 4b3ii and 4b3iii, Wagner Lighting has disclosed this information to three (3) sources. However, Wagner Lighting does not consider these disclosures to be a compromise of the confidential nature of the material. During conference calls on the twentieth day of May, 1991, Allegro MicroSystems, Inc. of Concord, N.H. and Exar Corp. of San Jose, California were given this information. These companies are designers and manufacturers of custom integrated circuits (IC) which would be used to control Wagner Lighting's flasher. Both of the companies were being interviewed as potential suppliers of the solid state IC that would help perform the functions listed in this document. Prior to this date, both of these companies had signed a non-disclosure agreement concerning any information that would be given to them by Wagner Lighting concerning purposed flasher development. The same information was shared again with Exar in meetings at Wagner Lighting on June 25-27, 1991.

This information was also disclosed to one of our customers. On three (3) separate dates, May 9 and 29, 1991 and June 13, 1991, This information was shared with the General Motors (GM) Flasher Task Force in Detroit. The GM Flasher Task Force is developing a new flasher specification for the corporation. Wagner Lighting felt this information was important for future flasher technology and needed GM's feedback as a customer. The other competitors, who are also involved with the GM Flasher Task Force, were asked to leave the room before this information was disclosed. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, it was only disclosed to GM personnel.

Wagner Lighting does not feel that any of these disclosures is a compromise to the confidentiality of the following ideas because Wagner Lighting has applied for a patent for these ideas. (Patent application WLD-019749)

Per 512 4b3iv, Wagner Lighting knows of no other disclosure, public or private.

Per 512 4b3v, Wagner Lighting knows of no prior determination of these ideas.

Per 512 4b3vi, Wagner Lighting feels that the disclosure of these ideas would be harmful due to two (2) reasons. One, Wagner Lighting is planning on applying for foreign patents and the disclosure of these ideas would jeopardize these applications. Second, if the US patent is not granted, it would take away the competitive advantage of these ideas.

Per 512 4b3vii, Wagner Lighting sees no reason why this disclosure would impair NHTSA's ability to obtain similar information in the future.

Per 512 4b3viii, Wagner Lighting sees no reason why this disclosure would impair any other government interests.

Per 512 4b3ix, Wagner lighting request that these ideas be held as confidential until such time that US and European patents are awarded.

Per 512 5a, Wagner Lighting feels that the denial of confidentiality would result in competitive harm.

DESCRIPTION

The present conflict involves turn signal flashers, hazard warning flashers, and combination flashers, which perform the functions of both previously listed flashers. The conflict centers around FMVSS 108.

Previous to the 3 terminal, 3 lamp electronic/relay flasher, automobile systems utilized two 2-terminal thermal flashers. One flasher operated the automobile signal lamps for the turn signal mode, the other for hazard warning. Still today, the two 2-terminal flashers are used in 754 of the vehicles made in the United States.

The turn signal flasher would operate in a "steady on" condition if a lamp was lost (i.e. lamp outage) in the turn signal mode. This was to indicate to the driver that a lamp had failed. The hazard warning flasher would operate at the same speed regardless of the number of lamps, down to two lamps. The constant speed was required to maximize the visual perception of the flashing lamps, no matter how many lamps had failed. Both the turn signal and the hazard warning flashers are required to operate within the unshaded polygon shown in Figure 1.

FMVSS 108 was written to agree with the above discussion. The actual laws read:

FMVSS 108 (reference SAE J945 (3.0)) "...The previous operating tolerances shall apply for loads of two signal lamps, and the maximum design load..." where the tolerances are the unshaded polygon in figure 2.

FMVSS 108 (reference SAE J588e (4.5)) "failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate should be indicated by a "steady on", "steady off", or by a significant change in the flashing rate of the illuminated indicator."

In the 1980's, electronic based flashers were introduced into the market. Presently, most are three terminal (battery, load, and ground) relay based flashers. (note: there is a two terminal, transistor based flasher (battery and load) under development at Wagner Lighting). These electronic flashers are required to operate within the same unshaded polygon in Figure I during the normal turn signal and in the hazard warning mode. Because the flash rate/duty cycle window is so wide, the technology of the flashers on the market today have wide variations in flash rate over temperature. Therefore, the flash rate had to be doubled for the lamp outage condition in turn signal mode to meet the "significant change" required in FMVSS.

As automobile designers began to cut costs, the electronic/relay flashers were used as combination flashers, both turn signal and hazard warning mode. However, using the flasher in this application for a 3 lamp turn signal/6 lamp hazard system introduced a conflict with the FMVSS laws. The units were design to double in flash rate when there were only 2 lamps in the system. This would indicate a lamp out for the turn signal mode.

However, if a automobile had 4 lamps out while in hazard mode, the flasher would also double in flash rate. There would be two lamps flashing in hazard mode outside the unshaded polygon and therefore not within the optimum perception region of other drivers. Such an occurrence would be rare case, but it is possible and therefore is a safety issue.

The present solution to the problem is the electronic/relay flasher designers plan to add a terminal to the flasher that would indicate whether the vehicle is in turn signal or hazard warning. A special IC would be designed to monitor this terminal, and adjust the flash rate accordingly.

This solution will require an additional terminal on the flasher, an additional plug, associated wiring, and a new switch design. All of these will add cost to the automotive wiring system.

Wagner Lighting has a solution to the problem.

The proposed lamp outage indication will remain within the acceptable performance range of FVMSS 108 represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 GRAPH - FMVSS 108 POLYGON (Graph omitted)

I Michael D. Incorvaia, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFRS12. state as follows:

(1) I am Manufacturing Engineering Manager, and I am authorized by Cooper Industries Wagner Lighting Division, hereinafter written as Wagner Lighting, to execute documents on behalf of Wagner Lighting.

(2) The information contained in the following letter to the Office of Chief Counsel is confidential and proprietary data and is being submitted with the claim that it is entitled to confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C #22(b)(4).

(3) I have personally inquired of the responsible Wagner Lighting personnel who have authority in the normal course of business to release the information for which a claim of confidentiality has been made to ascertain whether such information has ever been released outside Wagner Lighting.

(4) Based upon such inquiries, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the information for which Wagner Lighting has claimed confidential treatment has never been released or become available outside Wagner Lighting except as hereinafter specified:

(5) I make no representations beyond those contained in this certificate and in particular, I make no representations as to whether this information may become available outside Wagner Lighting because of unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure except as stated in paragraph 4; and

(6) I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this the tenth day of July, 1991.

Michael D. Incorvaia

ID: nht91-4.38

DATE: July 5, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dwayne R. Szot

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-28-91 from Dwayne R. Szot to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6171)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAXed letter of June 28, 1991, with respect to your prospective importation from Poland of a 10-year old Syrena passenger car. We have also received a letter from Roy Slade, President, Cranbrook Academy of Art, relating to you.

As you have explained, you intend to remove the engine upon arrival to meet EPA approval. You intend the remainder of the vehicle to become a "time capsule" containing artifacts relating to the hopes and dreams of Poles, here and abroad, for the future, and their feelings about the past and present. You will transport the car among Polish communities here, and then seal the car in November in a Plexiglas box. For the next 25 years, the car will be displayed in its box at museums and art galleries, and, in 2016, will be returned to Poland.

As you undoubtedly know, motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported into the United States, with such exceptions as Congress has authorized in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, and as have been set forth in the implementing regulation, 49 CFR Part 591. The Syrena, of course, does not meet these standards. The Act does not specifically permit the importation of a noncomplying vehicle for purposes of static display, though it does allow admission for purposes of "research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training, or competitive racing events." We have not interpreted any of these provisions as allowing importation for display.

The question then is whether the importation of the Syrena for the purposes described may nonetheless be justified because it presents no threat to motor vehicle safety. We note that you will satisfy the concerns of EPA by removal of the engine. This, in itself, does not result in the Syrena becoming something other than a motor vehicle, but it does mean that the Syrena cannot be driven on the public roads.

Further, under the circumstances you describe, should the vehicle be towed, it is unlikely to be occupied by passengers because of the quantity of its contents. Under the circumstances you have described, the Syrena time capsule will present no threat to motor vehicle safety.

Although the importation of this vehicle may be a technical violation of the 1988 Act, it would not be the type of violation that this agency, in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, would pursue. You may therefore present this letter to the appropriate Customs officials at the port where the Syrena will arrive for entry into the United States as a

statement from the Department of Transportation that it has no objection to your importation of the Syrena time capsule.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) who spoke with your wife last week.