ID: nht94-1.75

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry R. Lynch -- AT & D Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/27/93 from Larry R. Lynch to John Womack (OCC-9281)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about how Federal safety standards would apply to the "AeroCon System," a new product being developed by your firm. You state that this product is an air deflector/fairing that provides aerodynamic braking. According to you r letter, "By opening doors on the fairing unit, the full force of the relative wind speed is redirected to strike the trailer face, greatly decreasing stopping distance. The pneumatic power required to actuate the system's doors utilizes the auxiliary air system of the tractor." (emphasis in original)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about air deflectors or fairings. However, since the AeroCon System "utilizes the auxiliary air system," it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If the AeroCon System is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567.) If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor v ehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR S567.7.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingl y render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A). You may w ish to

determine whether the AeroCon System adversely affects compliance with any of the requirements in Standard No. 121.

In addition, under the Safety Act, the AeroCon System would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in S151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the r ecall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for no tifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-1.76

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe de Sousa -- President, Safety Pro's International, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/12/93 from Joe de Sousa to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC-8998) and letter dated 8/12/93 from Joe de Sousa to Richard Van Iderstine

TEXT:

We have received your letter of August 12, 1993, as well as your letter to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency and its enclosures.

You are interested in marketing an accessory daytime running lamp (DRL) system, and have asked for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to this product. There appear to be two versions of this system. In both systems, the DRLs are the lower beam headlamps, automatically activated at 77% intensity when the ignition is turned on. The taillamps and side marker lamps are not activated. The systems are deactivated when the ignition is turned off. The systems d iffer in that one automatically activates the headlamps to full intensity (while activating the taillamps and side marker lamps as well) at a predetermined lower ambient light level.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, aftermarket lighting equipment may be installed provided that it does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehic le safety standard. The system you describe is congruent with the DRL systems permitted by Standard No. 108, which allows DRLs to be lower beam headlamps operated at less than full intensity, without activation of the taillamps and side marker lamps. Th erefore, the installation of either of your DRL systems would not affect a vehicle's pre-existing compliance with Standard No. 108 or any other standard, and is permissible under our regulations.

We note that the reduced intensity is achieved by a "pulse with modulation" which cycle the headlamps "on and off faster than the eye can detect." S5.5.10(d) of Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning for uses other than flashing. While a modulating headlamp technically is not a steady-burning one, for purposes of this requirement we have concluded that there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be a steady beam, as appears to be the case here.

ID: nht94-1.77

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 10, 1994

FROM: Norman Duncan -- President, Study-Tech, Inc.

TO: Rodney Slater -- Administrator, FHA Transportation Department

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Norman Duncan (A42; VSA 108(a)(2)(A); Std. 108) and letter dated 10/22/93 from John Womack to Thomas G. Cehelnik

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request from your office AN INTERPRETATION OF THE EXISTING VEHICLE CODE as it may apply to a safety-warning system that our corporation has devised.

The system:

- Is designed to operate at the rear of vehicles to warn the cars following that they are slowing down.

- Can be attached to either the existing brake lights of the vehicle, or could use separately mounted "warning lights" mounted at the rear- deck level and facing toward the back of the vehicle.

- Will automatically be activated the moment the vehicle "begins to slow-down" due to deceleration.

There are many benefits to be derived from the use of this device.

For example:

- There are critical time intervals between when a driver notes an emergency ahead and when the driver reacts. Precious seconds are lost before the driver's reflex action activates the brake lights.

(Note: Using the "Early-Warning Slow-Down Safety Light", the driver following would see the warning light at the precise moment that the vehicle begins to slow.)

According to statistics gathered from several state's traffic and crash facts books, (Eg. "Illinois Crash Facts and Statistics - 1992), about 25% of all collisions involving two vehicles are rear-end type accidents. This is an alarming fact! This type o f accident is in the category of "Could-be-Avoided" if drivers were more alert, or a warning signal was given at the moment of deceleration of the vehicle in front.

That degree of being "alert" in normal traffic is the foundation for our "Early-Warning Slow-Down Safety Light". We envision this device to be the latest in an emerging field of new safety devices. The newest safety devices include: the air bags, the rear-deck additional "stop light", improved head lamps and Anti-locking Brake Systems. Soon, we understand, General Motors will install running lights for their cars that will be "on" whenever the ignition is turned on. All of these

recently developed safety features are designed to bring about higher standards for safety for our nation's highways. Our device, we feel, is another important extension of this concern to make our U.S. vehicles as safe as possible.

We need your assistance and look forward to your answers to the following questions:

A. Can current vehicle codes be interpreted to allow for an automatic signal when a vehicle begins to slow-down?

B. If vehicle codes do not allow for this type of device, would you or some member of your staff be willing to assist us in an effort to develop plans to allow this type of device?

C. Would you or members of your staff be interested in attending a demonstration of the prototype of the safety device? (To be arranged.)

It is our goal to apply for a patent for this device because it represents important "new" technology in this particular field.

An early response from your office would be appreciated very much. We look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht94-1.78

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John M. Tolliday -- President, Dayman USA Inc. (Bedford, VA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/89 from Stephen P. Wood to Clifford Anglewicz (Sec 102); Also attached to letter dated 9/2/93 from John M. Tolliday to John Womack (OCC 9063)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of September 2, 1993, with respect to your wish to import "British Army Ferret Armored Cars." The armaments have been removed. You would be selling these vehicles "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." You ask whether the vehicles would be exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed two photos of the machine.

By way of background, I would like to discuss how military vehicles manufactured in the United States are treated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The first qu estion to be answered is whether any particular vehicle is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the Safety Act, that is to say, whether it is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. If we conclude that a vehicle is manufac tured primarily for on road use, it is a "motor vehicle," notwithstanding the fact that it may be sold "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." We see no way in which a seller can bind a purchaser to such use, and, certainly, such a restriction would not be binding on subsequent owners of the vehicle. As for individual vehicle types, to state the obvious, a tracked motor vehicle such as a tank intended for cross-country off-road terrains is not a "motor vehicle." If a vehicle, suc h as a military bus, has been manufactured primarily for on- road use, it is a "motor vehicle." However, NHTSA excuses vehicles from compliance with the FMVSS if they have been manufactured in accordance with contractual specifications of the armed forc es of the United States (49 CFR 571.7(a)). Furthermore, because the Safety Act does not regulate sales of vehicles to owners subsequent to the original one, the U.S. armed forces may sell military vehicles to the public at the end of their useful milita ry life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS (however, because of safety policy considerations they have not done so with respect to M-151 jeeps and HMMV vehicles).

The importation of used military vehicles manufactured abroad is governed differently. Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether a Ferret, at the time of importation, would be considered a "motor vehicle." In an interpretation concerning an "armored security vehicle" then being used by the U.S. armed for ces, we informed the manufacturer, Verne Corporation on August 7, 1989, that the vehicle would have to conform to the FMVSS if sold for civilian use. I enclose a copy of that interpretation. We believe that this interpretation applies to the Ferret as well, and, therefore, the vehicle is not exempt from the FMVSS. Because of the

overall configuration of the Ferret with its high approach and departure angles and its suitability for use on rough terrain, the FMVSS that would apply are those that must be met by a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

Assuming you are still interested in importing the Ferret's for resale, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the Ferrets be imported by a "re gistered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet t he FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

ID: nht94-1.79

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs, Ltd. (England)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to faxes dated 2/11/94 and 2/10/94 from Jerry L. Steffy to Taylor Vinson (OCC 9661)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAXes of February 10 and 11, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You have informed us that in Canada you were able recently "to use ECE Reg. 20 in lieu of FMVSS 108 for a particular headlamp use." You have asked whether it is possible to do the same in the United States.

The answer depends upon whether the ECE Reg. 20 headlamp also meets FMVSS No. 108. Motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be equipped with headlamps that comply with FMVSS No. 108. This standard does not incorporate ECE Reg. 20. Therefore, importation and sale in the United States of any motor vehicle equipped with an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp that does not meet Standard No. 108 would be in violation of our law.

You have also asked whether our temporary exemption procedures, 49 CFR Part 555, would permit you to apply for an exemption for this headlamp on the grounds of "an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle safety." After one model year, you would change to a headlamp that meets FMVSS 108.

The exemption procedures are available to manufacturers of motor vehicles, but not motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the manufacturer of an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp could not apply for an exemption. The appropriate petitioner would be the manufacturer of a mo tor vehicle on which a Reg. 20 headlamp is installed as original equipment. We assume that Triumph Designs is associated with the manufacturer of Triumph motorcycles, and this manufacturer would be eligible to submit a petition under Part 555.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht94-1.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1994

FROM: Stephen M. Monseu -- General Manager, Schroth Restraint Systems Corp.

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/21/94 from John Womack to Wolf Ebel (A42; Redbook; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I would like to add one more request for response in addition to my previous letter.

If one of our belt systems were installed as original equipment would they meet the provisions of FMVSS 208 and what would we have to do to remain in compliance?

Your response will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht94-1.80

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harold R. Burke, Esq. -- Duel and Holland (Greenwich, CT)

TITLE: Importation of Type M-151 Military Vehicle

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/8/93 from Harold R. Burke to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8867)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of July 8, 1993, asking several questions about the motor vehicle importation regulations as they apply to M-151 military vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your client wishes to import for resale in the U .S. approximately 8,000 such vehicles built in the U.S. between 1973075, and which, according to you, have never been used.

Before I answer your questions, you should know that it has been the policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) for at least two decades to section and scrap M-151s at the end of their useful military life rather than to sell them for civilian use or allo w further use by other government agencies. This policy, which was developed with the participation and support of this agency, is based on the tendency of the M-151 to turn over during quick turning maneuvers or when driven by unskilled operators. DOD has followed this policy consistently, notwithstanding the economic benefits that would accrue to the government were the vehicles allowed to be sold to the public or to be operated by other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Park Service, in non-milita ry applications. The unvarying applicability of this policy highlights the safety concern of two Federal Departments for civilian use of the M-151, and we believe that your client should be aware of the potential liability that sale to the public would e ntail.

Your client should also be aware that, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), (the Act), any person importing motor vehicles for resale is considered the "manufacturer" of these vehicles, and would have the same responsibility as the original manufacturer to notify owners and remedy safety related defects in the event they occurred in the M- 151. (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)). For example, the agency has the authority to determine that a tendency to overturn is a defec t in performance, a safety related defect which would require the importer for resale to notify and remedy in accordance with statutory requirements (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.).

You have asked the following three questions:

"1. As U.S. origin vehicles which have been outside this country since 1975 are they now classified as 'foreign' vehicles which are subject to current D.O.T. and E.P.A. safety and emissions criteria?"

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not classify motor vehicles as "domestic" and "foreign." Any motor vehicle, whether manufactured in the U.S. or elsewhere, must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMV SS) in order to be sold in the U.S. The FMVSS that apply to a motor vehicle to be imported into the U.S. are those that were in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured, not those in effect at the time of its importation. We are unable to advise you on the regulations of the

Environmental Protection Agency as it is an agency independent of the Department of Transportation.

In order to be imported into the U.S., a motor vehicle must conform with (or be brought into conformity with) any applicable FMVSS. Although the M-151 is a "motor vehicle" under the Act, from the beginning the agency on its own volition has excluded mot or vehicles manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications from compliance with the FMVSS (49 CFR 571.7(a)), though retaining jurisdiction over them for safety defect notification and remedy campaigns. This means that the M-151 was not designed to comply with FMVSS at the time of its manufacture.

For importers of an M-151 other than the Armed Forces of the United States, the importer would be required, as a condition of importation, to bring the M-151 into compliance with the FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. However, because of the restrictions imposed by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (PL 100-562), it is no longer simple to import nonconforming motor vehicles to which the FMVSS apply. Under this recent legislation, the agency must make a formal determinati on, either pursuant to a petition or on its own motion, that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS. Following this, a vehicle may be imported by its owner, only if the owner has a contract with a "registered importer" (one whom the ag ency has recognized as a converter) to convert the vehicles, or if the importer itself is a registered importer. However, nonconforming vehicles which are imported for resale can only be imported by a registered importer. We would require any prospecti ve civilian importer of an M-151 manufactured in 1973-75 to demonstrate that the vehicle is capable of conversion to comply with the FMVSS that applied to multipurpose passenger vehicles during that period. A bond equal to 150% of the value of the vehic le as determined by the U.S. Customs Service must also be posted during the conversion process.

"2. If they are not considered 'foreign' vehicles what, if any, D.O.T. regulations would apply to the registration of such vehicles for use on U.S. roads?"

"3. If they are considered 'foreign' vehicles . . . ."

There are no Federal registration requirements for vehicles sold to persons other than Federal agencies. State regulations apply. We are not conversant with State registration laws, and refer inquirers for an opinion to the American Association of Moto r Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

ID: nht94-1.81

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Angela R. Caron (Meridian, MS)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/17/93 from Angela R. Caron to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9119)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the safety of aftermarket belt positioning devices. The devices you ask about alter the positioning of vehicle lap and shoulder belts, for the advertised purposes of improving the fit of the belts on children an d small adults.

Although NHTSA understands your view that safety belts should be comfortable for the wearer, we have significant concerns about aftermarket belt positioning devices. The following discussion explains those concerns and the effect of our regulations on s uch products.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not have a safety standard that directly applies to belt positioning devices. Our safety standards for "Occupant Crash Protection," (Standard No. 208) and "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages" (Standard No. 210) apply to new, completed vehicles. In addition, ou r safety standard for "Seat Belt Assemblies" (Standard No. 209) applies to new seat belt assemblies. Because a belt positioning device is neither installed as part of a completed vehicle nor as part of a seat belt assembly, none of these regulations app ly to belt positioning devices.

While none of these standards applies to a belt positioning device, the manufacturer of the product is subject to the requirements of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. To date, ther e have been no defect proceedings concerning these products. In addition, while it is unlikely that a belt positioning device would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the Safety Act prohibits those busi nesses from installing the device if the installation "rendered inoperative" compliance with any safety standard.

Belt positioning devices raise safety concerns you should consider in deciding whether to use these products. These devices could be used in a way that significantly affects crash forces on the occupant. Standard No. 208 includes requirements that have the effect of ensuring that the lap and shoulder belts distribute the crash forces to the occupant's skeletal structure, a part of the body that can better withstand the forces. For example, Standard No. 208 requires the shoulder belt and the lap belt to intersect off of the abdominal area. A device that moved that intersection from the side to the middle of the abdomen could greatly increase the loading on the occupant's abdomen. An increase in abdominal loading could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt.

There are other concerns about these devices. The realigning of the shoulder belt could increase the likelihood that the wearer would twist toward the middle of the vehicle in a crash, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt. In addition, if the device introduced excessive slack into the belt system, the occupant's head would be more likely to contact the vehicle interior. Also, slack in the belt system generally introduces higher crash forces, which incr ease the risk of injury. We urge you to consider these factors when deciding whether to use a belt positioning device, or the manner in which to use one.

You also asked whether a "travel vest" can be used with your two and a half year old son, in place of a child seat. The travel vest is a "child restraint system" and is thus subject to our safety standard for child restraints (Standard No. 213). The ma nufacturer of the travel vest (which the standard refers to as a "harness") is responsible for determining the conformance of the vest to the requirements of Standard No. 213, and certifying that the vest so conforms. This agency periodically tests prod ucts for compliance with Standard No. 213. When properly used, harnesses that comply with Standard 213 provide good protection in a crash, similar to that provided by child seats. You should always follow the manufacturer's instructions for using the c hild restraint system, including the specifications for the weight of the child for whom the restraint is recommended.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-1.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: Gary Klingaman -- Engineer, Inter Pipe, Inc.

TO: Office Of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/21/94 From John Womack To Gary Klingaman (A42; Redbook (2); PART 567)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We are a manufacturer of water trucks and lube/fuel service trucks. We take incomplete vehicles and add water tanks and various other apparatus, making it a complete vehicle.

By Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards we are required to identify this vehicle by a sticker indicating manufacturer, incomplete vehicle manufacturer, date of manufacturer, GVWR with indicated tires, tire pressure, and vehicle identification number.

We also may use pre-owned chassis in construction of our product. Do we need this sticker for this type of vehicle?

I would appreciate any further information on this tag that is required and if it is required on used chassis belonging to either the customer or one we have purchased to sell.

Regards,

INTER PIPE, INC.

ID: nht94-1.83

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Andrew Tweddle -- AV Technology Corp. (Troy, MI)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/8/93 from Andrew Tweddle to Walter K. Myers (OCC 9352)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether AV Technology's armored vehicle is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). As explained below, a vehicle manufactured to U.S. Army contract specifications, and sold to t he Army, is not subject to the FMVSS.

In your letter, you explained that AV Technology is in the process of responding to a Department of the Army draft specification for an armored security vehicle. AV Technology proposes to offer its Dragoon ASV, an armored security vehicle, with a weapon carrying capability. Your letter states that the Dragoon ASV would be built to U.S. Army specification MIL-STD-1180. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the Dragoon ASV would also be built to other applicable m ilitary specifications.

The FMVSSs' applicability to vehicles manufactured for and sold to the U.S. military, is addressed at 49 CFR 571.7(c):

(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

You stated the Dragoon ASV would be manufactured to all applicable military specifications, specified by the Army. The Army is part of the "Armed Forces." Thus, when manufactured to Army contractual specifications, and sold to the Army, the Dragoon ASV is not subject to the FMVSSs.

If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.