ID: morr.jeg

Ms. Sarah L. Morrissey
Corboy & Demetrio
33 N. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60602

Dear Ms. Morrissey:

This responds to your faxed letter concerning air bag regulations. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You asked what specific governmental regulations were in effect regarding air bags in a 1994 Plymouth Voyager. You also asked whether the Voyager is considered a car or light truck.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations related to air bags are included in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. The safety standards that apply to a vehicle depend on its date of manufacture. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 208 revised as of October 1, 1993. This corresponds to the early part of the 1994 model year.

For purposes of our safety standards, the Plymouth Voyager was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. I note that the term "light truck" is commonly used to refer to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

For further information about air bags and related rulemakings, you may wish to visit our web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov and select the term "Air bags" under the Popular Information column.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:208
d.6/16/97

ID: motor_vehicle_definition

Mr. M. James Lester
Director
NaturalForm, Inc.
1407 N. Batavia Street, Suite 111
Orange, CA 92867





Dear Mr. Lester:

This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 2001, asking for an interpretation that small utility trucks and vans you wish to import from Korea are not "motor vehicles" subject to regulation by this agency. You enclosed a flyer which describes the vehicles you wish to import as follows: (1) a "Coach" van, designed to seat 7 passengers; (2) a "Panel Van," designed to seat 2 passengers; and (3) two types of flatbed trucks-each designed to seat two passengers-one for standard cargo and the other for long cargo.

We note that we addressed the importation of similar vehicles manufactured by Asia Motors in our letter of August 11, 2000, to Daryl R. Nelson of Fleet Golf and Industrial Vehicles, Inc. In your letter, you list five factors that this agency has considered in determining whether a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" subject to our motor vehicle safety regulations. After each factor, you provide facts about your situation. These factors are:

1. Whether the vehicle will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it will be advertised exclusively for off-road use. You represent that "All advertising, brochures, and promotional materials will clearly state that these vehicles are intended for use off-road only." You further indicate that "use [of the vehicles] in any other capacity will serve to void the warranty." This factor suggests that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

2. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist the vehicle's purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use. You addressed this factor by stating that "any MCO or MSO would have to come though our company, and under no circumstance would we ever assist in obtaining such documents for the purpose of registering these vehicles for on-road use." This factor would indicate that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

3. Whether the vehicles will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles. You replied that your company "do[es] not intend to market these vehicles through automobile or truck dealers, but instead will market through golf car, turf and industrial vehicle dealers." According to your letter, such dealers "primarily sell vehicles for off-road use in such applications as[:] maintenance and material handling on golf course grounds, park grounds, large industrial plants, etc." While golf courses, park grounds, and large industrial plants may have roadways, these are generally not roads used by the general public. Accordingly, this factor suggests that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

4. Whether the vehicle has affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads. You have informed us that the vehicles you wish to import will have a 2-inch by 7-inch yellow and black label mounted on the rear headed "WARNING" and which states that "This vehicle is for off-road use only. The use of this vehicle is not intended for on-road use, and it does not meet US DOT regulations for on-road use. It is illegal for use as a licensed vehicle!" As this agency's regulations concern on-road vehicles rather than on-road use, we would ask that you change the second sentence of the warning label to read as follows: "This vehicle is not intended for on-road use, and it does not meet US DOT regulations for on-road vehicles." With this change, this factor would indicate that the vehicles are not motor vehicles.

5. Whether states or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. You state that "it is your understanding that some foreign countries do allow the use of these vehicles on-road in some circumstances." For purposes of this interpretation, we assume that they are operated there without the 25 mph-speed governor that you will install on the ones that your company intends to import into the United States. Since the vehicles closely resemble small trucks and vans used on the public roads, we believe it is likely that states would permit them to be registered for highway use. Therefore, this factor suggests that the vehicles should be considered motor vehicles.

Based on the representations in your letter and considering all the five factors discussed above, on balance, we believe that your vehicles are not "motor vehicles." However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn, for example, the vehicles are in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners.

If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this Office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.6/26/01

ID: Mr_ Richard Hardesty

ID: Ms Buley

ID: MULTISTG.UPS

Mr. Thomas S. Klingman
Motor Carrier Tax Manager
United Parcel Service
55 Glenlake Parkway NE
Atlanta, GA 30328

Dear Mr. Klingman:

This is in response to your letter dated January 26, 1996, in which you requested that this office clarify which party is responsible for odometer disclosure under Federal law when the disclosure involves a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages. Your letter states that United Parcel Service (UPS) has encountered differing interpretations from several jurisdictions when it registers these vehicles.

Under the Federal odometer law, it is the person transferring ownership of a motor vehicle who is obliged to disclose the odometer reading under Federal law. 49 U.S.C. 32705; 49 CFR 580.5(c). Accordingly, the answer to your question of whether it is the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or the final-stage manufacturer that must disclose the mileage on the odometer hinges on the meaning of the terms "transferor" and "motor vehicle" as applied to the Federal odometer disclosure requirements.

Section 32702(8) of Title 49 of the United States Code states that "transfer" of a motor vehicle means "to change ownership by sale, gift, or other means." In its implementing regulations, NHTSA has defined "transferor" as "any person who transfers ownership of a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any means other than the creation of a security interest." Under Part C of Subtitle VI of Title 49 of the United States Code, the definition of "motor vehicle" that applies to the Federal odometer law is:

. . . a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S.C. 32101(7).

According to your letter, UPS purchases the chassis of its vehicles from various chassis manufacturers, and then the chassis is shipped to a body manufacturer, which installs the body on the chassis. The body manufacturer never obtains ownership of the chassis. Accordingly, the only transfer of ownership that takes place between the body manufacturer and UPS is the sale of the body to UPS. This is not a transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle as that term is defined for purposes of the Federal odometer law, because the body alone is not "driven or drawn by mechanical power." This interpretation is also supported by NHTSA's regulation, which exempts vehicles that are not self-propelled from the odometer disclosure requirements of 49 CAR Part 580. 49 CAR 580.6(a)(2). From the outset, NHTSA has exempted transfers of such vehicles from the odometer disclosure requirements because it determined that for this category of vehicles, odometer mileage is not used as a guide for value, because most non-self-propelled vehicles lack an odometer. 38 Fed. Reg. 2978-79 (Jan. 31, 1973).

Therefore, the states that require odometer disclosure when the chassis is transferred from the chassis manufacturer to UPS are following the correct procedure under Federal odometer law. Any state that does not require disclosure for that transfer is not following the correct procedure under Federal law. Federal law does not require any odometer disclosure at the time that the body manufacturer transfers ownership of the body to UPS. A state may on its own decide to impose this as an additional requirement to register the vehicle, but it is not a requirement of the Federal law, and such a disclosure would not have to comply with the Federal regulations governing odometer disclosure statements.

I hope this interpretation is responsive to your request. If you have further questions concerning interpretation of the Federal odometer statute and regulations, please contact

Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at the above address, or at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

ref:580

d:3/21/96

ID: mvaltr.etl

BY TELEFAX

Mr. John H. Strandquist
President
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
4301 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22203

Dear Mr. Strandquist:

I have received a copy of the Issue Alert dated April 17, 1997, that you sent to the members of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators concerning the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Diersen v. Chicago Car Exchange, 110 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 1997). In that decision, issued on March 31, 1997, the court held that the NHTSA regulation that exempts vehicles ten years old and older from the requirement in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327 that an odometer disclosure statement be completed when ownership of the vehicle is transferred (49 CFR 580.6(a)(3)) is invalid because Chapter 327 does not authorize exemptions from that requirement. Your Issue Alert noted that you had contacted NHTSA "to determine whether any action is planned to amend the current legislation for odometer disclosure requirements" in light of the Diersen decision.

NHTSA has concluded that amending legislation is unnecessary because Congress has already given the agency the authority to exempt vehicles from the disclosure requirements of Chapter 327. Specifically, in section 332 of the FY 1997 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Pub. Law 104-205 (Sept. 30, 1996), Congress provided that "notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Secretary may use funds appropriated under this Act, or any other subsequent Act, to administer and implement the exemption provisions of 49 CFR 580.6 and to adopt or amend exemptions from the disclosure requirements for any class or category of vehicles that the Secretary deems appropriate."

In light of the fact that Congress has now authorized NHTSA to expend funds to adopt or amend exemptions from the disclosure requirements, the agency has concluded that the most expeditious way to resolve the uncertainty caused by the Diersen decision is to publish a final rule repromulgating all of the exemptions currently contained in 49 CFR 580.6 under the statutory authority of section 332 of P. L. 104-205. Because the current situation can cause problems, such as confusion about whether or not an odometer disclosure statement is required when an older vehicle is transferred, inappropriate rejection of title applications and other delays in the titling process, particularly for vehicles transferred into states within the Seventh Circuit, we plan to make this final rule effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.

So that your members and others may have prompt access to information about actions NHTSA is taking in response to the Diersen decision, the agency plans to post this letter, the Federal Register notice and any other relevant information on its World Wide Web site, which is accessible on the Internet at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/new. We will also provide you with a copy of the Federal Register notice as soon as it is available.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
5/28/97

ID: myles.ztv

Mr. Russel Myles
McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge, L.L.C.
63 South Royal, Suite 900
Riverview Plaza
Mobile, AL 36602

Dear Mr. Myles:

This is in reply to your letter of March 7, 2003, following up on my letter of

May 24, 2002, regarding prepaid mandatory service insurance policies acquired by registered importers. You have two questions related to that letter.

Your first question is related to my conclusion that if such a policy becomes ineffective because the underwriter has gone out of business, an RI would not be required to secure a new policy that provides coverage for the periods that remain outstanding on all previously imported vehicles. You asserted that this is contrary to my statement in the letter that "policies must remain in effect until ten years have elapsed from" the date on which the vehicle is first purchased after importation. You asked that I reevaluate this interpretation.

Obviously, we hope that the issuer of the mandatory service insurance policy will remain financially able to honor claims against that policy for the full ten years that free remedy of noncompliances and safety-related defects is required. However, as I remarked last year, "the owners of these vehicles would be protected to the extent that the company is required by state regulatory authorities to maintain sufficient reserves or take other measures to cover its outstanding liability on previously issued policies in the event that it should go out of business."At that time, we were unaware that any policy underwriter had gone out of business. You have now brought to our attention one that has: Vehicle Protection Services (VPS) of Michigan. However, you have not indicated that any owner covered by a VPS policy has suffered actual loss as a result thereof, or that Michigan law does not adequately address the issue of reimbursement. As I further noted in 2002, our regulations do not obligate a RI to obtain new policies for previously imported vehicles if the original underwriter goes out of business. For this reason, I cannot provide an interpretation that differs from the one I gave you last year. However, if events transpired that such a requirement would be in the public interest, we could propose an appropriate amendment to our regulations.

You have also expressed concern about contracts issued to a RI by a company that is not an insurance carrier but an entity that is only "backed" by an insurance company. Specifically, you asked who has standing "to make a claim on the real insurance policy," commenting that "the insurance companys only obligation is to the non-insurance company issuing the guarantee." It is our understanding that a vehicle owner holding such a policy would present a claim to the non-insurance company which would either pay the claim or present the claim to the insurer for payment, either to the policy holder or the non-insurance company. We adopted these requirements based upon what we understood were the commercial realities of the time, principally the difficulty in finding businesses that would issue service insurance contracts or policies.

We noted your statement that "vehicle owners and/or RIs could find themselves facing deductibles and other coverage limitations that completely undermine the regulatory coverage requirements and create other practical difficulties for those persons intended to be protected." However, RIs, as part of the application process, are required to furnish us with a copy of the policies they intend to provide to vehicle owners and are thereafter required to notify us within 30 days of any change in the information that is submitted in its application. See 49 CFR 592.5(a)(8) and (f). RIs are also required to include a current copy of their service insurance policy in their annual applications for renewal. See 49 CFR 592.5(e). We routinely review these policies to ensure they are consistent with the obligation of the RI to provide remedy without charge during the term of the policy.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:591
d.5/27/03

ID: Nakachi

Matthew K. Nakachi, Esq.
Law Offices of George R. Tuttle
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1160
San Francisco, CA 94111





Dear Mr. Nakachi:

This responds to your letters of November 30, 2000 (as supplemented by an email of December 18, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office), and January 3, 2001, concerning the applicability of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards to sidecars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable FMVSSs. ⁽¹⁾ The FMVSSs apply in different ways. Some apply only to new motor vehicles, others apply to new items of motor vehicle equipment ("equipment standards"), while others apply to both new vehicles and new equipment.

Your letters concern the importation of sidecars which would be sold to individuals who already own motorcycles. These sidecars would not be considered "motor vehicles" but would be considered motor vehicle equipment. ⁽²⁾ Therefore, standards that apply only to new motor vehicles would not apply to these sidecars. However, as discussed below, the sidecars would be subject to certain equipment standards.

If an aftermarket sidecar incorporates motor vehicle equipment that is regulated by an equipment standard, the equipment would have to independently comply with the applicable standard. (See NHTSA's May 4, 1982 letter, copy enclosed). Of particular relevance to sidecars are our standards for brake hoses, tires, tire rims and glazing, all of which apply to individual items of

equipment. Brake hoses, tires, tire rims and glazing, if provided on a sidecar, must meet the requirements of Standard Nos. 106, 119, 120, and 205, respectively, that apply to equipment for motorcycles.

You note, for certain of these standards, that the "scope" sections do not mention sidecars but only include such equipment that is used with "passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles." That the standards do not list sidecars is not of significance, because the lists only include vehicle types, and a sidecar is an accessory item (not a vehicle itself). A sidecar is an accessory for a motorcycle. Therefore, equipment on a sidecar is equipment for use on a motorcycle. To determine whether a standard applies to the equipment on a sidecar, we check the application section of the standard to see whether it applies: (a) to items of motor vehicle equipment, and (b) that is for use in motorcycles. If the answer to both of these is yes, then the equipment on the sidecar would have to comply with the standard.

Standard No. 108

In the May 4, 1982, letter we also stated that lighting equipment on a sidecar would have to comply with Standard No. 108. We have reconsidered our views on this issue. Standard

No. 108 applies, in relevant part, to certain types of motor vehicles including motorcycles, and to "(l)amps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies." Since an aftermarket sidecar is sold as an accessory to a motorcycle and not to replace a part of a motorcycle, any lamps, reflective devices or associated equipment on the sidecar would not be "for replacement of like equipment" on the motorcycle. Therefore, Standard No. 108 would not apply to an aftermarket sidecar. This would be true whether the sidecars were imported as single items or with the sidecar fenders incorporating lighting equipment separated from the rest of the sidecar.

However, detached and discrete items of lighting equipment that could be installed either on motor vehicles to which Standard No. 108 applies, or on an aftermarket sidecar, could not be imported unless the items of lighting equipment comply with Standard No. 108. We do not understand that your client intends to import detached items of lighting equipment.

Standard No. 119

Our understanding is that the tires of the sidecar are not labeled in any manner. Unlabeled tires would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 119. The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119, "New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars" (49 CFR 571.119), are set forth in paragraph S6.5 of the standard. Paragraph S6.5(b) requires that each tire be marked with "the tire identification required by part 574 of this chapter." Section 574.5, "Tire identification requirements," specifies that "[e]ach tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufactures, except tires manufactured exclusively for mileage contract purchasers or non-pneumatic tires of non-pneumatic tire assemblies, by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number (TIN) containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section." According to this paragraph, the information must be molded into or onto the sidewalls of the sidecar tires. Of course, the tires would also have to comply with all performance requirements applicable to new motorcycle tires.

Standard No. 120

ID: nash.ztv

Mr. Rod Nash
Vice President of Engineering
Collins Industries, Inc.
15 Compound Drive
Hutchinson, KS 67502-4349

Dear Mr. Nash:

This is in reply to your two letters of June 23, 2003, received in this Office on July 16.

In one letter, you wrote on behalf of Capacity of Texas (Capacity), which you identified as a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of Collins Industries, Inc. (Collins). You related that "Collins has other subsidiaries that build school buses, commercial buses, and ambulances." You commented that only a portion of Capacitys total production of "spotter trucks" is certified for use on the public roads, less than 500 vehicles a year, but that the total number of vehicles manufactured by all subsidiaries of Collins will be more than 500 a year. You have asked whether Capacity may report as a small volume manufacturer under the early warning reporting (EWR) regulation (i.e., under 49 CFR 579.27 rather than under 49 CFR 579.22).

In the other letter, you have written on behalf of Wheeled Coach Industries (Wheeled Coach), another wholly-owned Collins subsidiary. Wheeled Coach produces both light vehicles and medium-heavy vehicles (all ambulances). You reported that you were told by a panelist at the public meeting of June 19, 2003, that if production of either of these types "within a years time" was under 500, Wheeled Coach would only have to report about deaths involving that type. You have written for confirmation that Wheeled Coach can report as a small volume manufacturer "in years the production volume is less than 500 ambulances" of each type.

Collins presents itself as a specialty vehicle manufacturer with seven subsidiaries. See www.collinsind.com. In addition to Capacity and Wheeled Coach, these subsidiaries include Collins Bus Corp., World Trans. Inc., Mid Bus Corporation, Waldron Equipment and Lay-Mor. Collins most recent release of financial information states that Collins

Industries is a leading manufacturer of ambulances, North Americas largest manufacturer of Type "A" small school buses, the nations second largest manufacturer of terminal trucks and a leader in the road construction and industrial sweeper markets. These products are made by its various subsidiaries. Similarly, Collins Industries most recent SEC 10-K filing states that the Company, Collins, manufactures the products referred to above. Collins presents its financials in consolidated statements that include its subsidiaries.

As we explained in a recent interpretation to Jason Cavallo of the Halcore Group, "[u]nder the EWR regulation, the definition of "manufacturer" at 49 CFR 579.4(c) includes parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates. For purposes of determining whether the production of vehicles meets or exceeds the 500 vehicles per year threshold in Section 579.21 et seq., the production of the divisions, parent, subsidiaries and affiliates must be aggregated. However, under Section 579.3(b), the parent may report collectively or the incorporated entities may report separately, provided that all vehicles are covered by the reporting."

The determinant between full and limited (i.e., small volume manufacturer under Section 579.27) reporting is the total annual aggregate production for each type of vehicle defined by the EWR regulation. With respect to vehicles manufactured by Collins, these types would appear to be "medium-heavy vehicle and bus," and "light vehicle," which is defined as any vehicle (other than a bus, motorcycle, or trailer) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. If the aggregate number of either light vehicles or medium heavy vehicles and buses is less than 500, Collins (or its individual subsidiaries) would only have to report limited information required by Section 579.27 for that type of vehicle.

With regard to your second letter, as explained above, Collins must report according to the aggregate production of each vehicle type. For example, assume that Wheeled Coach produces less than 500 medium-heavy vehicles and another subsidiary of Collins produces less than 500 buses. If the aggregate production by both subsidiaries (and all other subsidiaries of Collins) of medium-heavy vehicles and buses is 500 or more, Collins (and/or its individual subsidiaries) must report as required by Section 579.22. By the same token, if Wheeled Coach is the only subsidiary of Collins producing light vehicles and its production is less than 500, Wheeled Vehicles (or Collins itself) would report with respect to those vehicles under Section 579.27. However, to report under Section 579.27, the production of light vehicles must be less than 500 "during the calendar year of the reporting period or during each of the two prior calendar years" (Section 579.21). Moreover, if Collins anticipates that Wheeled Coachs total production of light vehicles will exceed 500 before the end of a calendar year, Collins would file its quarterly reports as required by Section 579.21, even if its production was below 500 in each of the prior two calendar years.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson or Andrew DiMarsico of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.8/20/03

ID: nash2.ajd

Mr. Rod Nash
Vice President of Engineering
Collins Industries, Inc.
15 Compound Drive
Hutchinson, KS 67502-4349

Dear Mr. Nash:

This is in reply to your letter dated September 17, 2003 on behalf of Capacity of Texas, which is a subsidiary of Collins Industries, Inc. (Collins), with respect to the early warning reporting regulation, 49 CFR Part 579. This office received your letter on September 26, 2003.

In your letter, you reference and attach two communications from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): one was my letter of August 20, 2003 and the other was an e-mail from Bob Squire of NHTSAs Office of Defects Investigation. You stated that "Capacity of Texas is willing to report information on the one hundred or so spotter trucks they build a year that are certified for on highway use."You further stated that if the volume of trucks is so small that only reporting deaths is the appropriate procedure, then you are prepared to follow that directive.

The reference to trucks in your letter is not clear. Collins and its subsidiaries must report according to the aggregate production of each vehicle category. Therefore, we expect Collins or Capacity of Texas to report for each vehicle category for which the aggregate production by Collins and all its subsidiaries and affiliates is 500 or more. Thus, for example, if the spotter trucks are medium-heavy vehicles, and Collins and/or its subsidiaries also manufacture medium-heavy vehicles, the production volumes of all these companies vehicles must be aggregated to determine whether the companies must report under 49 CFR 579.22 or 579.27.

Please note that the Office of Defects Investigation has amended the manufacturer identification application to cover situations in which a manufacturer is reporting early warning information on behalf of subsidiaries or affiliated companies. Therefore, when applying for a manufacturers identification number for early warning reporting, the reporting entity has to identify each parent, subsidiary, or affiliate for which it will be providing information.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.Any questions on the manufacturer identification application should be presented to Jon White of NHTSAs Office of Defects Investigation, who may be reached at (202) 366-5226.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.10/10/03