ID: nht93-2.22

DATE: March 21, 1993

FROM: Christopher Banner

TO: John Wolmack (Womack) -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-9-93 from John Womack to Christopher Banner (A41; Part 568; Part 571.7(e))

TEXT:

I am looking into the possibility of producing a line of luxury cars and limousines based on an existing chassis but having a body of my own making. I am sure that the Department of Transportation has all sorts of safety and other regulations which would cover such a product. Representative Jim Slattery of Kansas recommended you as a source of information on this subject. Could you either send me relevant material, or direct me to a source? Here in Manhattan, we have a government documents section in the Kansas State University Library. Perhaps I could find the references of interest in it, if I knew what they were.

ID: nht93-2.23

DATE: March 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James L. Vasko

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-1-89 from Stephen P. Wood to John K. Moody; Also attached to letter dated 2-17-93 from James L. Vasko to John Womack (OCC 8337)

TEXT: Thank your for your letter of February 17, 1993, replying to my letter of February 11 with respect to your invention, the "Front Brake Light System."

Although you did not address my assumption that your invention flashes both front signal lamps when the brake pedal is applied, it would appear from your latest letter that the system activates the front signal lamps in a steady-burning state, with a flashing turn signal overriding the steady-burning front stop signal when the turn signal is activated. We derive this from your statement that a driver pulling into traffic "would see the turn signal and the brake light showing that the vehicle was braking and turning."

This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, under which we issue the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT specifies the requirements for lamps and reflectors that are used as original equipment on motor vehicles. There is no restriction under the Safety Act or Standard No. 108 as to the manufacture and sale of your invention. Equipment that is not specified in the standard, such as the "Front Brake Light System," may be installed by either the vehicle manufacturer or the dealer, provided that the equipment does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. Thus the question is whether a front turn signal would be impaired by the illuminated presence of its counterpart in a steady-burning mode on the other side of the vehicle. The decision is initially to be made by the installer. If the decision appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will inform the appropriate party who made the decision. We note that the possibility of impairment exists if an observer is momentarily confused as to the message that the vehicle driver is sending, and that such momentary confusion can exist when novel lighting devices are used on motor vehicles, or when familiar lamps are used in unfamiliar ways.

The legality of the "Front Brake Light System" in the aftermarket, when a vehicle has been sold and is in use, is determinable under the Safety Act itself. The Act prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." We tend to equate impairment with partial inoperability. Thus, if your invention, as original equipment, impairs the effectiveness of the front turn signal it would also, as aftermarket equipment, render the turn signal partially inoperative within the meaning of our interpretation of the Safety Act. However, the Safety Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from personally-modifying his or her vehicle in any manner.

Optional lighting equipment such as your invention is also subject to the laws of the States in which the equipment will be used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and recommend that you contact, for an opinion, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. We have previously given an interpretation with respect to a front stop light indicator system, and I enclose for your information a copy of our letter of November 1, 1989, to John K. Moody.

ID: nht93-2.24

DATE: March 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: L. J. Sharman

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-18-92 from L. J. Sharman to NHTSA, Department of Transportation (OCC 8089)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 18, 1992, regarding the test procedure in Standard No. 302, FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR MATERIALS. Your questions and the answer to each follows.

Question 1.

MVSS-302, in Section S5.3(e), states that the timing for each specimen be started when the flame from the burning specimen reaches a point 1.5 inches from the open end of the specimen and, in section S5.3(f), is stopped when the flame progresses to a point 1.5 inches from the clamped end of the specimen. Further, the Standard, in Section S5.2.2, states the specimen is oriented so that the surface closest to the occupant compartment air space faces downward on the test frame. The question that has been raised is whether the timing is started and stopped when the flame reaches the designated points on the surface of the specimen closest to the occupant compartment air space (the surface facing down during the test), or when the flame reaches the designated points on the surface of the specimen facing away from the occupant compartment air space (the surface facing up during the test).

You suggest that the timing should be started and stopped when the flame reaches the designated points on the surface facing up during the test. As explained below, NHTSA disagrees.

Section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 302 states: When tested in accordance with S5, material described in S4.1 and S4.2 shall not burn, nor transmit a flame front across its surface, at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. However, the requirement concerning transmission of a flame front shall not apply to a surface created by the cutting of a test specimen for purposes of testing pursuant to S5.

Any surface not created by the cutting of the test specimen, including the surface oriented downward pursuant to S5.2.2, is required to comply with the burn-rate requirement of S4.3(a). Surfaces created by the cutting of the test specimen were excluded from this requirement in a final rule published on March 31, 1975 (40 FR 14318). The reasons for the exclusion were stated in the notice as follows:

(C)utting certain materials to the prescribed thickness produces a tufted surface upon which a flame front may be propagated at a faster rate than it would be upon the surface of the material before cutting, thereby creating an artificial test condition.

Because of this exclusion, the surface facing upward pursuant to S5.2.2 is not required to comply with the burn-rate requirement of S4.3(a) if the surface was

created by cutting the material to be tested to the prescribed thickness.

In addition, I note that S5.3(b) requires the test specimen to be placed in the center of the cabinet. Therefore, it should not be any more difficult to observe the progress of the flame on the surface facing down than the surface facing up.

Question 2.

MVSS-302, in Section S5.3(f), states that the flame progression be measured to a point 1.5 inches from the clamped end of the specimen under test. The standard does not specify actions to be taken after timing has stopped. Some laboratories put out the flame using a small amount of water from a spray bottle. The question has been raised as to whether using a small amount of water from a spray bottle to put out the flame is an acceptable procedure.

You are correct that Standard No. 302 does not specify a procedure to extinguish the flame after the test. Therefore, spraying a specimen with a small amount of water to extinguish the flame would be acceptable.

However, please bear in mind that S5.1.2 states

Prior to testing, each specimen is conditioned for 24 hours at a temperature of 70 degrees F. and a relative humidity of 50 percent, and the test is conducted under those ambient conditions.

After spraying a specimen in the test cabinet, it would be necessary to ensure that the ambient conditions in the cabinet conform to those specified in S5.1.2 before conducting any additional tests.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-2.25

DATE: March 24, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: A. L. Bragg -- Laboratory Manager, Truck-Lite Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-22-93 from A. L. Bragg to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 8375); Also attached to letter dated 12-30-92 from Paul Jackson Rice to T. Kouchi (A40; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 11-23-92 from T. Kouchi to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 8081)

TEXT: We have received your letter of February 22, 1993, to Paul Jackson Rice, the former Chief Counsel of this agency, with respect to his letter of December 30, 1992, to Stanley Electric Col. Ltd. In your opinion, the letter, which interpreted Safety Standard No. 108 as it applied to light-emitting diodes (LEDs), raises certain problems.

You are correct that NHTSA equates individual LEDs with lighted sections. Currently, this is the only way in which NHTSA can relate LEDs to Standard No. 108, a standard based upon lamps with incandescent light sources. For this reason, NHTSA has begun to consider possible amendments to Standard No. 108 that would recognize, as the SAE has done with J1889, the advent of lamps with LED light sources. Should NHTSA then publish a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject, we would welcome your further comments.

ID: nht93-2.26

DATE: March 24, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dale E. Dawkins -- Director, Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-9-93 from D. E. Dawkins to John Womack

TEXT: We have received your letter of March 9, 1993, responding to mine of February 18.

On December 16, 1992, you informed the agency of the intent of Chrysler Corporation to manufacture 10 Chesapeake Consortium Electric Vehicles (CCEV) under NHTSA Temporary Exemption 92-1.

According to your December letter, these vehicles are "almost identical" to the TEVans for which the agency granted the temporary exemption, except that they will utilize an AC electrical motor, while the ones which were the subject of the exemption petition will be powered by a DC electrical motor. You seek no broader exemption as the combined volumes of CCEVs and TEVans "will not exceed the maximum units of the petition that was granted."

It appeared that you wished confirmation from NHTSA that the CCEV vehicles are covered by Temporary Exemption 92-1. As I informed you on February 18, in order for the agency to provide this confirmation, we must determine that CCEV and TEVans are essentially the same vehicle and that none of the minor differences between the vehicles affects the findings made by the agency in issuing the TEVan exemption. In granting Chrysler's exemption petition covering three standards, the Administrator first found that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low emission motor vehicle. We do not believe that the change in electrical propulsion from DC to AC affects this finding. The Administrator next found that an exemption from the three standards would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle. You stated that "(b)ased on our engineering judgement, there is no significant difference between the CCEV or TEVan in terms of overall vehicle safety." While you may have used the word "significant" in an excess of caution, it implied that there were differences between CCEV and TEVan and that there was a difference in overall vehicle safety between the CCEV and TEVan, although not an important one from Chrysler's viewpoint. Therefore, we asked you to identify the differences between the vehicles, and of the differences, if any, in the safety between the CCEVs and TEVans that may have led to Chrysler's engineering conclusion.

Your letter of March 9 informs us that there are "no discernable safety differences" between TEVans and CCEVs. It further informs us, as before, that the only difference between the two programs of electric vehicle development is the propulsion motors and transmissions. Therefore, it appears that two vehicles are essentially the same in design and in terms of the level of safety provided, and that it is appropriate to consider the CCEVs covered by the TEVan exemption.

We appreciate your calling our attention to this matter.

ID: nht93-2.27

DATE: March 25, 1993

FROM: Brett J. Higgins

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council's Office, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-93 from John Womack to Brett J. Higgins (Std. 208)

TEXT: I am interested in selling a special clamp that is applied to the shoulder strap of a seatbelt as an after-market item. The purpose of this clamp is to allow for slack in the shoulder harness section of a seatbelt thus allowing it to be worn more comfortably.

My first concern has been to find out if this item would be legal to sell and use in the United States. I contacted the Department of Transportation in Washington D.C. and spoke with Mr. Mark Levine in the seatbelt division. He informed me that to his knowledge there are no legal restrictions on selling such an item. He did, however, recommend that I contact you and ask for your advice in this matter.

If you have any information that might be helpful to me, I would greatly appreciate it if you would contact me by letter. If you would prefer to contact me by telephone, I can be reached at (714) 963-3721,

I thank you in advance for any assistance you may offer.

ID: nht93-2.28

DATE: March 25, 1993

FROM: Jose M. Gonzalez -- Engineering Manager, Kustom Fit

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Ed Jetner -- NHTSA 208 Engineer; Ron Belk -- KF President; Bob Barras -- KF of Ohio

TITLE: Re: Baseline Sled Testing Evaluation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-93 from John Womack to Jose M. Gonzalez (A41; Std. 208; VSA 108(b)(2)

TEXT: We are a manufacturer of seating products for the recreation industry. We have been in business since 1956. We do follow and test our products for your established standards. Since early 1991, we began testing our products dynamically using HIGE Sled Testing laboratories. We have been successfully obtaining good results that are under 20% or more than the maximum requirement criteria with one exception, the General Motors G Van. We have done 4 tests using Hybrid III dummies and we have improved the results with every test. However, we can't achieve the same levels of confidence that we have achieved with other vehicles. We would like to hear your opinion for the following approach:

We would perform two tests: The first being a baseline HIGE sled test using all OEM hardware and seats and the second one with OEM hardware and our seats. The results would then be compared as follows:

If the results of the test using our seats are equal or better than those obtained values with the OEM seats and hardware, does this test prove that our seats are safe to use instead of OEM? Can these results and procedures be acceptable as do diligent and can our seats then be certified for use in these vehicles regarding FMVSS 208?

Your response to this request will be highly appreciated.

ID: nht93-2.29

DATE: March 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jay Lee -- President, Pacific Agritrade Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-14-93 from Jay Lee to Jackson Rice (OCC 8262)

TEXT: This responds to your January 14, 1993, letter asking for information on how to have an air bag you wish to import from Korea tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 ET SEQ.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or conduct pre-sale testing of any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I note that the term "manufacturer" is defined by section 102(5) of the Safety Act to mean "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, INCLUDING ANY PERSON IMPORTING MOTOR VEHICLES OR MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT FOR RESALE." (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION (49 CFR S571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like.

It is unclear from your letter if the air bags you wish to import will be sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags or retrofit air bags for vehicles which do not have air bags as original equipment. If the air bags are sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the air bag is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the installation of the air bag. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.)

While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208.

Another Federal requirement that would affect the device if it were installed in a used vehicle, either as a replacement or retrofit air bag, is the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208.

You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. You should be aware that recently the manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants ceased offering its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the manufacturer's test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-2.3

DATE: March 2, 1993

FROM: Berkley C. Sweet -- Executive Vice President, School Bus Manufacturers Institute (SBMI)

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-3-93 from John Womack to Berkley C. Sweet (A41; Part 571.3; VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 3-20-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Cadwallader Jones (A35; VSA 102(14); Part 571.3).

TEXT: On July 28, 1992, Mr. Paul Rice responded to our letter of May 29, 1992 concerning MVSS 222 regarding under-aged children transported in school buses.

In this correspondence, he referred to primary, pre-primary, and secondary school students. We would like to have your definition for each class of the students mentioned in Mr. Rice's letter.

Your cooperation in assisting us in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht93-2.30

DATE: March 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven C. Friedman -- Director of New Product Development, Saddleman, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-19-93 from Steven C. Friedman to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8263)

TEXT: This responds to your January 19, 1993, letter asking for information on any Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to retrofit air bags. Your letter states that these devices are intended for vehicles which do not have factory-installed air bags.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 ET SEQ.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION (49 CFR S571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like.

While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208.

Another Federal requirement that would affect a retrofit air bag is the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard.

You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. Please note that recently a manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide any crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants recalled its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true.

I also note that, based on the product information you provided with your letter, NHTSA technical staff raised possible concerns about the air bag you are considering importing. The design differs from other air bags in two significant ways. First, while the crash sensor for air bag systems is normally located in the vehicle structure, yours is not. Second, while air bags generally are released toward the driver's chest from the steering wheel, your air bag would be released from above toward the driver's face and chest. For driver crash protection, the crash sensor of an air bag system must initiate deployment of the air bag early enough in a crash to position the inflated air bag between the driver and the steering wheel in time to cushion the impact. At the same time, it must not be so sensitive that it deploys the air bag in non-crash situations. Given the ways in which the crash sensor of your system differs from other air bag systems, our technical staff questions whether it is possible for it to initiate deployment early enough in a crash to provide occupant protection yet not be so sensitive that it deploys the air bag in non-crash situations. In addition, while the inadvertent deployment of any air bag system would raise safety concerns, the location of your air bag would increase those concerns, since it would appear to interfere with the driver's forward vision even after deflation.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to get copies of these materials.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202)

366-2992.