ID: nht74-1.19

DATE: 09/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dexter Axle Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 19, 1974, request to be advised of the steps necessary to acquire a manufacturer code number as required by Standards No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars.

Standard No. 119 applies to tires-only and it is the responsibility of the tire manufacturer to obtain a code number and label it on his products. As a user of tires, you do not have obligations under this standard.

Standard No. 120 is a proposal which applies to rim construction and the selection of the correct rim for the (Illegible Word) equips. As a manufacturer of rims you would have a responsibility to label your products if this proposal becomes an effective regulation. However, we noted in the preamble to that proposal (copy enclosed) that we will not require manufacturer codes until a separate manufacturer code system has been established.

I am also enclosing a copy of the most recent proposal on manufacturer codes.

Yours truly,

ATTACH

August 19, 1974

Docket Section NHTSA

Re: FMVSS 119 and 120

Dear Sir:

Dexter Axle Co. Inc. is a manufacturer of running gear equipment for Mobile Homes and Recreational Vehicles. In our product line are wheels and rims subject to standards 119 and 120.

Please advise on the steps we must take to obtain a manufacturers code number as required.

Thank you.

Very truly yours, DEXTER AXLE COMPANY, INC.; J. A. Brown -- Manager - Engineering Res. & Dev.

ID: nht74-1.2

DATE: 10/25/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

OCT 25 1974 N40-30 (ZTV)

Mr. K. Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc. 1099 Wall Street, West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. Nakajima:

This is in reply to your letter of October 18, 1974 to Dr. Gregory asking whether the start position may be designated as the check position required by paragraph S5.3.2 of Standard No. 105-75.

The answer is yes. Any position between "on" and "start", including "on" and "start" may be designated by the manufacturer as a check position.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-1.20

DATE: 07/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Rubber Industry Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 8, 1974, question whether publication of a brochure that lists the rims that may be used with the tires produced by Toyo Tire Corporation would meet the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

Publication of such a brochure would meet the requirement of S5.1 so long as the tires are listed in accordance with S5.1(a), that is by manufacturer name or brand name, followed by a listing of rims that may be used with each tire listed. The brochure would have to be supplied to dealers of the manufacturer's tires, to any person upon request, and in duplicate to: Tire Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- Docket Section

SUBJECT: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, S5 Tire and Rim Matching Information

Dear Sir:

FMVSS No. 119 is requiring as follows:

S5 Tire and Rim Matching Information

S5.1 Each manufacturer of tires shall ensure that a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire that he produces is provided to the public in one of the following forms:

(a) Listed by manufacturer name or brand name in a document furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires, to any person upon request, and in duplicate to: Tire Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590; or

(b) Contained in publications, current at the date of manufacture of the tire or any later date, of at least one of the following organizations:

The Tire and Rim Association.

The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization.

Japanese Industrial Standards.

Deutsche Industrie Norm.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders, Ltd.

British Standards Institution.

Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization.

In case any particular tire and rim matching information is not contained in the publications mentioned in S5.1(b), and since S5.1(a) requires the tire manufacturer to provide a document to the public, we are going to use as a document a brochure which shows the tire and rim combination to be used.

We understand that such a brochure would comply with the requirement of S5.1. Please let us know your opinion as to whether our understanding is correct or not.

Should our understanding be incorrect, please let us know what kind of document we must provide to the public.

Your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Y. Takami -- Technical Representative, TOYO RUBBER INDUSTRY COMPANY, LTD.

ID: nht74-1.21

DATE: 07/08/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Lackey, Alexander & Jackson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We are enclosing herewith a copy of new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, which becomes effective March 1, 1975, and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding a new Federal standard (No. 120) which proposes requirements for tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars.

There are no Federal requirements regarding the tensile strength of tire bead.

We regret we cannot be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

LAW OFFICE

LACKEY, ALEXANDER & JACKSON

June 15, 1974

United States Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration;

Atten: E. T. Driver,

Dear Mr. Driver:

In your letter addressed to the undersigned, you enclosed copies on Standard Regulation Nos. 109, 110, 117, and part of 574. You stated that you were in the process of developing proposed Standards Nos. 119 and 120. If these standards have been completed, I will appreciate your forwarding a copy of the same to me.

I do not intend to impose upon you, but if you have in your rules and regulations any test of the tensile strength of the steel wires forming the bead as defined in 22914, Section 571.109, Standard No. 109, Sub-Section S-3, I would appreciate your also forwarding a copy of same.

I am now prosecuting a case against a manufacturer and find that the bead wire is completely separated. When it was placed upon the rim to be mounted, air was put in the tire to cause it to expand to the rim; and the party mounting the tire lost an eye when the air escaped with great force at the break in the bead into his face.

The defense to this law suit appears to be that the party mounting the tire put too much air in the tire which caused the bead to separate. I have had the tire X-rayed and find a clean break in the steel wires in the bead; but there is no breaking of the fabric or the rubber.

I, therefore, need to know the tensile strength of the wires forming the bead in order to meet my opponents' effort to prove that the steel wires were broken because of excessive inflation of the tire. If you have any regulation as to the required tensile strength of the bead wires, I will appreciate your furnishing me a copy of such regulation or specification.

Your cooperation in this matter is very much appreciated.

Yours very truly,

Joseph L. Lackey

ID: nht74-1.22

DATE: 04/16/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Trelleborgs Gummifabriks Aktiebolag

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 20, 1974, request for a determination of whether two of your motorcycle treadwear indicator designs conform to the S6.4 requirements of Standard 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

The treadwear indicator requirements have been amended by deleting all of that portion of S6.4 that begins "The indicators shall, as a minimum". This means that the manufacturer determines for himself the location and design of the six treadwear indicators required (three in the case of motorcycle tires). He must assure himself that when the indicator is reached, the tread at that point on the tire is worn to a depth of one-sixteenth of an inch (or one-thirty-second of an inch in the case of motorcycle tires).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

U.S. Department of Transportation, att: Asst Chief Counsel Richard Dyson -- National Highway Traffic Administration

FMVSS-119 Motorcycle Tires

Dear Mr Dyson.

Trelleborg Gummifabriks AB has exported motorcycle tires to U.S.A. for a couple of years. With referens to FMVSS-119, S 6.4 Tread Wear Indicators. We have a little question:

If you look on the two enclosed drawings, G-3053-2, you find two different designs for treadwears: "Forslag I" and "Forslag II".

Please, inform me if you think the one or both of the two designs are in accordance with your stipulations.

Yours sincerely TRELLEBORGS GUMMIFABRIKS AKTIEBOLAG -- Tire Department; Erik Sundelin

ID: nht74-1.23

DATE: 08/01/74

FROM: R. B. Dyson -- NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation, David A. Martin (ASE)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to General Motors' July 10, 1974, request for interpretation of paragraph S3., Application, of Standard No. 106-74, Brake hoses, relative to brake booster hose. You refer to language in the preamble to Docket No. 1-5; Notice 11, published June 28, 1974 (39 FR 24012), which stated:

The NHTSA has concluded that the difference in requirements for the hydraulic booster system justifies special performance requirements for this application. Until these requirements are developed, hydraulic brake booster hose running from pump to accumulator will be considered to be exempt from the requirements of this standard. Hose running from accumulator to booster will also be exempted if redundant booster is provided.

This language exempts hoses used in certain functions, but not all. Clearly, booster hose running from accumulator to booster without redundant boost would not be exempt. Therefore, your conclusion that Standard No. 106-74 does not apply to any hydraulic brake booster hose, hydraulic brake booster hose end fittings, or hydraulic brake booster hose assemblies is overbroad and for that reason incorrect.

We suggest you describe in another letter the booster applications in General Motors vehicles which are not clearly categorized by the Notice 11 language. We will then be able to tell you whether or not they are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106-74.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

August 5 - RAR,RLL,DPD,JAN LCL,WCC,CRS,GFB

USG 1137

July 10, 1974

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building Washington, DC 20590

Dear Dr. Gregory:

This letter requests an interpretation of paragraph S3., Application of the amended Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106-74, Brake Hoses (Docket 1-5, Notice 11, published on June 28, 1974) as it relates to hydraulic brake hoses.

The General Motors petition (USG 1087, dated 3/27/74) for the exclusion of hydraulic booster hoses from applicability under MVSS 106 explained that both the low and high pressure hoses associated with the General Motors hydraulically boosted brake power assist units should be excluded from the hydraulic brake hose performance requirements due to their different working environment and construction. Moreover, we explained that the working fluid within these hydraulic booster hoses and the hydraulically boosted brake power assist unit is completely separate from the brake system master cylinder and the hydraulic brake hoses which contain the hydraulic brake fluid used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes.

Notice 11 preamble refers to this General Motors petition requesting exclusion of hydraulic booster hoses from the MVSS 106-74 requirements and concludes:

The NHTSA has concluded that the difference in requirements for the hydraulic booster system justifies special performance requirements for this application. Until these requirements are developed, hydraulic brake booster hose . . . will be considered to be exempt from the requirements of this standard.

This portion of the preamble leads General Motors to conclude that the Administrator's intent was to exempt all hydraulic brake booster lines.

Accordingly, General Motors interpretation of paragraph S3., Application, is that MVSS 106-74 does not apply to hydraulic brake booster hose, hydraulic brake booster hose end fittings, or hydraulic brake booster hose assemblies. A prompt verification of this interpretation is urgently needed, particularly since the amendment itself does not contain any provision stating that MVSS 106-74 is not applicable to hydraulic brake booster hoses, end fittings, and assemblies.

Very truly yours,

David E. Martin, Manager Automotive Safety Engineering

ld

ID: nht74-1.24

DATE: 01/16/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 17, 1973, letter to the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, asking whether a "sling" attachment of the upper end of an upper torso restraint to the roof rail is subject to Standard 210's requirements for seat belt anchorage location.

The ring, webbing, and attachment hardware you describe function together as a seat belt anchorage and as such are subject to the appropriate strength and location requirements of Standard 210. Because the location requirement of S4.3.2 is intended to strictly limit the placement of the fixed point from which a belt passes across an occupant's torso, and because the flexible portion of your sling anchorage duplicates the uninterrupted deployment of an upper torso restraint, only the fixed portion of such a sling anchorage would be subject to S4.3.2's location requirements.

YOURS TRULY,

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

December 17, 1973

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Attached is a drawing of one of the seat belt systems that we are considering using on some of our models in the near future.

Regarding the "sling" of this system, we interpret as follows:

If the sling is composed of a ring (A), fabric webbing (B), and attachment hardware (C) as depicted in the drawing, only the attachment hardware (C) is subject to the requirement of @ 4.3.2 which specifies that " . . . the seat belt anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint shall be located within the acceptable range . . ." since the nature of the webbing allows the ring (A) and the fabric webbing (B) to move with reasonable freedom, thereby removing them from the (Illegible Word) of anchorage expected in @ 4.3.2.

We believe that our interpretation meets the intent of @ 4.3.2 of Standard 210, but we need the confirmation of the Administration before we start tooling for production.

Your consideration of the above will be greatly appreciated.

Keitaro Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-1.25

DATE: 04/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bruck Caulkens, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 4, 1974 requesting information concerning the existence of any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to auxiliary fuel tanks.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated no motor vehicle safety standard relating to auxiliary fuel tanks. There is, however, a safety standard which imposes performance requirements upon motor vehicles with regard to their fuel systems. Thus, if installation of the auxiliary tank is accomplished prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale causing the vehicle's fuel system not to be in compliance with the applicable safety standard, the person installing the tank or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of @ 108(a) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That would make the installer or seller subject to civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make a determination as to whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that a safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer to notify purchasers of the hazard. Therefore, even though auxiliary fuel tanks are not the subject of a standard, they still must be safely designed.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Federal Safety Standard relating to motor vehicle fuel systems.

YOURS TRULY,

BRUCE CAULKENS, INC.

April 4, 1974

Lawrence R. Schnieder Chief Council Office of the Administrator -- NHTSA

Enclosed you will find a copy of U.S. Letters Patent #3,433,246 which affords a physical description of a portable, auxiliary fuel tank, designed primarily for stowage and/or transport of gasoline inside the trunk or other enclosed areas of an automobile or similar vehicle.

Briefly, the patented design concept is a small, 2-gallon, metal tank, having a filler spout and cap, on-off spigot, and a pressure relief valve from which a polyethylene or nylon tube provides continuous venting to the outside air.

The tank is easily removable from a harness assembly which holds it firmly in place. The tank must be removed from the vehicle when being filled, thereby eliminating the possibility of spillage into the trunk or enclosed area.

A Polyethylene tube attached to the spigot acts as a flexable carrier for transfer of gasoline/fuel from the auxiliary tank to the main fuel tank.

The tank has been tested by the Ethel Corporation Laboratories, 1600 E. 8 Mile Road, Ferndale, Michigan for Emission Control data and rendered an overall emission vapor factor of less than two (2) grams.

I am attempting to have the auxiliary tank manufactured and, because this will involve a great deal of money to set up (tooling, etc.), the manufacturer and I would like to be assured that the United States Government will not look unfavorably upon our auxiliary tank device.

Mr. Peter Cooley, Research Engineer, Michigan Highway Safety Research Program, Univ. of Mich., Ann Arbor, Michigan, Phone (313) 764-0248, has examined and noddingly (unofficially) approved of our tank device from both principle and practicality of design. Mr. Cooley suggested that the National Highway Safety Administration and the E.P.A. Departments of the Federal Government would not be interested from a control standards point of view because the auxiliary tank device is portable and not intended to be a fixed, permanent installation in an automobile.

We would appreciate receiving a letter from your department stating that due to the "portability" of our tank device, we would not be subject to Federal Control Standards, other than those set forth as generally acceptable standards and laws, local and federal, that regulate gasoline tanks, etc.

Bruce Caulkens President

Enc. (Patent Omitted.)

cc

Mr. Colver R. Briggs Automotive Safety Planning & Research Staff Ford Motor Company

Mr. Joseph Innes Administrative Chief National Highway Safety Administration

Mr. Emmett E. Hixon Automotive Corporate Sales Hercules, Inc.

Mrs. Julie Candler Automobile Editor Woman's Day Magazine

ID: nht74-1.26

DATE: 05/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mazda; Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 9, 1974, requesting an interpretation of the test procedure specified in Standard No. 301 (Docket No. 73-20; Notice 2) concerning the operation of the vehicle's fuel pump during testing.

Paragraph S7.1.3 of the standard requires that electrically driven fuel pumps be in operation during the barrier crash tests if they normally operate with the activation of the vehicle's electrical system. If the pump is incapable of functioning with the independent activation of the electrical system and requires the operation of the vehicle's engine, then the pump should not be running during the barrier crash tests.

Based upon the description you provide in your letter, it appears that you should conduct your barrier crash testing without operating the fuel pump.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

May 9, 1974

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Re: MVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity

In section 7.1.3 of Docket 73-20; Notice 2, we can find, "If the vehicle has an electrically driven fuel pump, that normally runs when the vehicles electrical system is activated, it is operating at the time of a barrier crash."

The underline was added to the Docket 73-20; Notice 1.

Although we feel NHTSA has granted our attached comments on February 8, 1974, hereby we confirm it again.

Our electrical fuel pump works only when the engine runs, and usually does not work when the ignition is in "on" position except that the engine works. In other words, our electrical fuel pump is connected to the engine and there's no relation directly from our electrical system in "on" position. Nevertheless, we will find that the vehicle's electrical system without fuel pump is activated, when the ignition is in "on" position and the engine is not in "running."

Our question is as follows: In the above system, we believe we may test the barrier crash without operating the electrical fuel pump. If its not so, we have to test it with another special connection between battery and fuel pump, "only on test."

Your opinion will be highly appreciated.

Always warmest,

Goro Utsanomiya -- Branch Manager, TOYO KOGYO U.S.A. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

cc: Mr. Williams; Mr. Makino

February 8, 1974

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Although the comment closing date is already over, we would like to submit the following comment, because we have a new problem by further review.

It would be appreciated if you consider this comment.

Sincerely yours,

Gorou Utsunomiya -- Branch Manager,

TOYO KOGYO U.S.A. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

cc: R. N. Williams

enc.

DOCKET 73-20, NOTICE NO. 1

COMMENTS OF TOYO KOGYO CO., LTD. ON NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY PASSENGER CARS, MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES TRUCKS AND BUSES (OF 10,000 GVWR OR LESS)

Comment

"S.7.1.4 - If the vehicle has an electrically driven fuel pump, it is operating at the time of a barrier crash test" should read as, "S.7.1.4 Ignition switch is at "On" position at the time of barrier crash tests."

Discussion

As you know, electrically driven fuel pumps are used on many cars. As far as we assume, this S 7.1.4 is established so as to minimize possibility of fire at the crash accident because electrical pump will keep working as long as ignition switch is at "On" position.

However, if we develop a system where the electrical fuel pump stops at the moment of impact in spite of ignition switch being in "On" position, this possibility will no longer exist.

As long as S 7.1.4 exists, we have to make the pump work by other means, such as direct connection between battery and pump, when we conduct a compliance test, and this S 7.1.4 will close the way of possibly developing a new safety device. We think that this situation is far apart from the actual one and this test is impractical.

Judging from the fact that there is no requirement, "Mechanical fuel pump is operating", we think S 7.1.4 can be changed. Needless to say, we recognize that we should minimize the possibility of a fire with electrical pumps. We would suggest S 7.1.4 should read, "Ignition switch is at "On" position.

ID: nht74-1.27

DATE: 03/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Ichikon Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 25 to Mr. Charles A. Baker of this Office concerning the performance requirements of automotive lamp bulbs.

The answers to your specific questions follow.

"(1) At the present, have we need to comply the performance of bulbs with the requirements including the dimentional specification of SAE (Illegible Word) subreferenced in the current FMVSS 108 as well as lighting devices?"

The answer is no. The lamp bulbs installed in production lamps or lighting devices are not included in the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. The requirements apply only to the lamp assembly (the reflector, lens, and associated components other than the bulb) when tested with a selected lamp bulb that (Illegible Words) and the specifications of paragraphs S4.1.1.19 and S4.1.1.20 of Standard 108.

"(2) In the final rule, which of SAE J573d or J573e is applicable as the subreferenced standard of the bulbs?"

The proposal in Docket (Illegible Word) Notice 3 was in paragraph 57.6 which referenced the 1972 edition of the SAE Handbook. SAE (Illegible Word) was included in this Handbook, and is, therefore, the reference for test bulbs in the proposal.

"(3) Do you have a plan that such consideration will be taken into the rule making for proposed FMVSS 108A?"

No such consideration is necessary, because, as indicated above SAE J573d is only a specification for the test bulbs used for the photometric tests of the lamps.

We trust that these answers are satisfactory; however, please feel free to contact us in case of future questions.

Sincerely,

Not controlled

ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES, LTD.

February 25, 1974

Charles A. Baker -- Acting Chief Division of Lighting and Vision, National Highway Safety Bureau Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Baker, Subject: Performance Requirements of Automotive Lamp Bulbs

As you awaire, SAE Standard J573, Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units, was revised from J573d to J573e, and SAE Recommended Practice J1049, Service Performance Requirements and Test Procedure for Motor Vehicle Lamp Bulbs was newly issued on August, 1973 respectively.

These revision and new issue confuse us in respect the conformity to FMVSS 108 in production of the bulbs.

Then we would like to ask you the following questions regarding the interpretation of the current FMVSS 108 and the proposed FMVSS 108A.

(1) At the present, have we need to comply the performance of bulbs with the requirements including the dimentional specification of SAE J573d subreferenced in the current FMVSS 108 as well as lighting devices?

(2) On the otherhand, the final rule for proposed FMVSS 108A (Docket No. 69-19: Notice 3) is expected to issue in early 1974.

In the final rule, which of SAE J573d or J573e is applicable as the subreferenced standard of the bulbs?

(3) We think that SAE J573 was established in the nature of design standard and revised as the specification of bulbs for photometric test of lamps. We think further that SAE J1049 was issued as the survice use of bulbs.

Do you have a plan that such consideration will be taken into the rule making for proposed FMVSS 108A?

Your early reply would be highly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Yoshio Horii, Manager -- Lighting Engineering Dept.