ID: aiam0771

Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of June 19, 1972, concerning th application of Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to a pocket which is attached to a front seat back. You ask whether, under S4.2 of the standard, the upper portion of the sample will be tested as an assembly, as this is the manner in which it appears in the vehicle. The upper portion of the sample consists of one material folded over itself, with an adhesion process joining the folded segments at points approximately 3/4 inch apart, across the length of the material. An elastic band is inserted in the fold of the material. The configuration is actually representative of two materials, therefore, with an elastic between them.; Paragraph S4.2 of the standard provides that surface materials i assemblies such as this are tested separately, unless bonded, sewed, or mechanically attached to underlying material (S4.2(a)). The reference to 'bonded, sewed, or mechanically attached' is intended to refer to materials joined uniformly by these methods, at their adjoining surfaces. The adhesion process you have used does not join the materials in this fashion, as there is a significant amount of area where the materials are not joined at all. Consequently, we would not test the assembly in the manner in which it appears in the vehicle, but would treat the material as separate material.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1365

Dear Mr. Jacobs: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1973 to 'U.S. Bureau o Safety' expressing your view that 'the automobile industry should ... have some type of clutch to reverse action when the closing motion of the (power) window meets any resistance.'; I enclose a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 11 *Power-operated Window Systems* which has applied to all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with power windows manufactured since February 1, 1971. The objective of the standard is to minimize the likelihood of injury or death occurring when a person is caught between a closing window and its frame, channel, or seat. The NHTSA determined that the most cost-effective way to accomplish this objective was by prohibiting operation of power windows when the ignition key is either in the ignition 'off' position or removed. As you will see from the enclosure, consideration was given to mechanisms that would reverse the direction of the window.; We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-3.17

DATE: 09/27/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 208 applies to side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicle vans. You also ask to be advised of the criteria to be used for the installation of seat belts in these vehicles.

Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, does require side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with one of the options under paragraph S4.2.2, since the side-facing seats in question would be considered designated seating positions. If a manufacturer chooses to install seat belts under one of the options of that paragraph, the seat belt assemblies must comply with Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages.

Safety Standard No. 210 does exempt side-facing seats from its strength requirements, but all other requirements of the standard would be applicable. However, we strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements. Side-facing seats were excepted from the strength requirements specified in the standard because the forces acting on side-facing seats are different from those acting on forward or rearward facing seats and the requirements and procedures were specifically developed for these latter seats.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

August 24, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Gentlemen:

The Wayne Corporation manufacturers small buses (GVWR 10,000 lbs. and under), Busette and Transette, which have a normal passenger capacity of 16 to 20 passengers.

Some of these buses are equipped to accommodate transporting the handicapped. In some of these cases, the operators' requirements for lifts, wheelchair anchorage devices, side facing seats, etc., reduced the passenger capacity to less than 10 persons, in which case the vehicle becomes, for purpose of Federal Certification, a multipurpose passenger vehicle rather than a bus.

Which, if any, of the requirements of FMVSS 208, Passenger Crash Protection, apply to side facing seats installed in the MPV discussed above?

If you should find that S4.1.2.3 of FMVSS 208 applies at the option of the manufacturer, please advise the criteria to be used for the installation of the seat belts, taking into consideration that all current seat belt requirements relate only to forward and rearward facing seats.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

ID: nht71-2.15

DATE: 03/18/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Willett Company

COPYEE: WILLIAM V. REYNOLDS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to a letter dated February 10, 1971, that was received from Mr. William V. Reynolds of the National Association of School Bus Contract Operators asking that we send our reply to you. The letter asks two questions concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, which are restated below with our response.

1. Is the standard applicable to a school bus operator who installs seat belts (not presently required) at the behest of a school board for use when transporting children attending Special Education Classes?

The answer to this question is no. Standard No. 213 applies only to child seating systems, and not to seat belts or persons who install seat belts. In addition, there are no other Federal requirements applicable to one who installs seat belts for passengers in either a new or used bus. There is, however, a Federal standard (No. 209) that requires all seat belt assemblies manufactured after March 1, 1967, to meet certain performance requirements. We strongly recommend that you examine the seat belts you wish to install to determine whether they were manufactured to comply with this standard. This can be done by examining the belt assembly, particularly its label or buckle assembly, for the date of manufacture, which may appear in an abbreviated fashion. Also, many seat belt assemblies manufactured after March 1, 1967, will be labeled with a specific statement that they comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This statement may alternatively appear on the box in which the belt assembly is delivered.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulation concerning requirements for seat belt assemblies at the driver's position, in buses under that

agency's jurisdiction, which became effective August 1, 1970. These requirements would be applicable to you if the buses in question are subject to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

2. Is the standard applicable to devices designed by the school physiotherapy department and built in the school carpentry shop for use in transporting handicapped children with a handicap that is peculiar to that one child? (This includes both regular and van-type buses.)

The answer to this question is yes. Standard No. 213 applies to all child seating systems for use in motor vehicles, including buses, regardless of whether the child seating system is manufactured by a company for sale or whether it is manufactured for persons for their own use, as in your case. If the standard poses a particular hardship in the situation you describe, however, we will be glad to discuss the matter further with the persons involved.

ID: aiam3111

Dear Mr. Yingst: This is in response to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weine of my office on July 12, 1979, about your company's plans to manufacture auxiliary gasoline tanks for passenger cars. You noted that the tanks will be designed for placement in the trunk above the existing fuel tank and that your company will act primarily as a manufacturer of these tanks but may do some installation. Specifically you asked what Federal regulations or standards would apply to the manufacturer, as well as the placement and installation of auxiliary gasoline tanks in motor vehicles. You also asked whether the we have testing facilities for such tanks and if so, whether the agency would be able to test one of your company's tanks.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, (copy enclosed) is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. The standard applies to completed vehicles rather than to fuel tanks or other fuel system components and thus is inapplicable to the manufacture of auxiliary fuel tanks.; Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to thei manufacture, auxiliary fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. As a manufacturer of auxiliary fuel tanks, you would be subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151 *et seq*., copy enclosed). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator, or yourself, you would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.; If you install an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle, prior to it first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, you would be a vehicle alterer under NHTSA regulations. As an alterer, you would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards--including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety- related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, you would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and to remedy the defect.; If you installed an auxiliary gasoline tank in a used passenge vehicle, you would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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. . .<<<; Thus, if you added an auxiliary tank to a used passenger vehicl manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system, you would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).; I would like to point out that in addition to the Federal law discusse above there may be State product liability laws applicable to your company's proposed activities. Therefore, you may wish to consult a lawyer before your company begins manufacturing and installing auxiliary gasoline tanks.; At the present time, NHTSA is not testing auxiliary gasoline tanks, bu the agency is involved in testing vehicles to determine their compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75. At some point the agency will probably begin testing auxiliary tanks that have been installed in vehicles, but such testing will be done only as part of our enforcement efforts. It is not a policy of the NHTSA to test and approve the products of particular manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.; In conclusion, please note that, in general, the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration discourages the use of auxiliary fuel tanks of any kind because of the grave dangers of fire and explosion posed by their improper manufacture or installation. In the near future this agency will be making a press release warning consumers of these hazards and discouraging them from using auxiliary fuel tanks.; I hope that you will find this response helpful and that you have no been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Rose Marie Sigismondo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Rose Marie Sigismondo Star Route Box 346 Dingman's Ferry, PA 18328

This responds to your letter asking whether our agency has any authority under current law to require school bus drivers to wear safety belts immediately. Practically speaking, the answer is no. Our authority over school transportation is indirect and can be effectuated only through the States. Let me explain.

The regulations on school transportation were issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564). The Highway Safety Act deals with the safety of vehicle operation through a grant program to the States. The standard to which you refer in your letter, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (hereafter HSPS 17), was issued under the authority of that Act. You are correct that section IV.C.d. (4) of this standard provides that drivers of school vehicles equipped with lap belts shall wear the belts whenever the vehicle is in motion. We issued this provision because we believe that safety belts protect school bus drivers in the event of an accident and assist to avoid accidents by helping drivers maintain control of their vehicles.

The great majority of the States have recognized the importance of requiring school bus drivers to wear safety belts, and have issued appropriate requirements either by law or through regulations issued by State agencies. It is the States' responsibility to require the use of safety belts by bus drivers. We have no authority to displace the States and issue regulations directly applicable to drivers. It is up to Pennsylvania to adopt regulations or legislation to require that school bus drivers wear their safety belts and to enforce its law.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Star Route Box 346 Dingman's Ferry, Pa., 18328 November 5, 1984 NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.D., 20590

Attn: Mr. Brundt

Dear Sir:

I have spent the last 8 weeks examining many aspects of school bus safety, especially seat belts on school buses. While researching I came across: a) Standard 17 amended 5/73 - Drivers of School Vehicles equipped w/ lap belts shall be required to wear them whenever the vehicle is in motion.

b) Pa. Equip and Safety Standards of School Buses and School Vehicles Ch. 171 9/1/83 Pg. 25 171.68 - Seat belt for driver. A seatbelt meeting the requirements of FMVSS 209 shall be provided for the driver. c) Pa. School Bus Operators Manual Dept of Trans. Pub #117 rev. 1978 Pg 48 - Adjust your seatbelt to provide firm yet comfortable support. Pg 56 Daily Inspection Form-Inside Bus-Seat belt adjustment.

It is obvious that Pa. complies w/ standard 17 in as far as requiring a belt for the driver. Most of our drivers do not wear their belts. I have called our state troopers asking for info on written warnings or citations that the drivers or contractors would receive when breaking this law.

When I couldn't get a firm answer I called Mr. Robert William who referred me to David Soule. after some discussion he referred me to Elana West Penn DOT 717/787-6453 her office referred me to Mr. William Hilton, 717/787-2895. Mr. Hilton explained that seat belts are required in driver positions although there is no law mandating the driver to use the belt, even when his operators manual tells him to do so. Mr. Hilton said that regulation will be written, it will take 3 mos. to a year for law to be passed.

I hope that your dept can do something in the way of mandating drivers to wear belts. Pa. complies w/ standard 17 on paper yet the most important factor isn't there, the penalty or incentive to wear the belt. I am confident that Mr. Hilton will do all he can to rectify this, but can't help to wonder how many other states are in the same position. As good as standard 17 is, it doesn't mean a thing when not enforced in real life.

I am writing you with hope that you can guide us in the proper direction in enforcing standard 17. Is there anyway presently to interpret current law so that the drive is will have to wear their belts immediately.

Sincerely yours,

Rose Marie Sigismondo

cc: Mr. John a Pachuta Director Bureau Motor Vehicles Pa. Judy Dranov Nat. Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses Rep. William S. Foster Senator Frank O'Connell Senator H. John Heinz Congressman Joseph McDae Senator Arlen Spector Rep. Peter Nostmayer Senator Stewart Greenleaf Doctor G. Strock Superintendent. Delaware Valley School District

Dingmans PTA debates school bus seat belts

[Text Omitted]

ID: 002310Tunick_retrofit_on_off

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your March 9, 2004, e-mail concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225), and the installation of air bag on-off switches.

You ask whether the standard requires a dealer or motor vehicle repair business that installs an air bag on-off switch at the front passenger seating position in a vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR Part 595, "Retrofit on-off switches for air bags," to install also a child restraint anchorage system in that position. The answer to your question is a child restraint anchorage system would not have to be installed.

FMVSS No. 225 requires each vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, to have a child restraint anchorage system at certain designated seating positions. Generally, these are forward-facing rear designated seating positions. An exception is set forth in S5(c)(1) and (c)(2) of FMVSS No. 225, which specify that each vehicle that has an air bag on-off switch must have a child restraint anchorage system for a designated passenger seating position in the front seat.

Under section 30112(b) of our statute (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301), the FMVSSs apply only to the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. Thus, S5(c)(1) and (c)(2) of FMVSS No. 225 require each vehicle that has an air bag on-off switch installed as original equipment to have a child restraint anchorage system in the front passenger seating position. The requirement does not apply to the vehicle once it is sold and delivered to the first purchaser.

If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.4/20/04

ID: 16619.ogm

Ms. Susan Ohara
Safety Engineering
Mitsubishi Motors of America
Ann Arbor Laboratory
3735 Varsity Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Ms. Ohara

This is in response to your letter requesting information regarding the requirements of Standard No. 201, Head Impact Protection. Specifically, your question relates to locating the B-pillar reference point (BPR) where the specific characteristics of the vehicle interior create difficulties in locating that point. Your letter and accompanying drawings indicate that in the vehicle in question, a groove or indentation is formed at the intersection of the side rail trim and the edge of the interior surface of the roof. You note that S10.2(a) directs that BPR is the point "located at the middle of the line from Point 3 to Point 4 in Plane 7, measured along the vehicle interior surface." The presence of the groove presents the choice of locating BPR either through measuring along the actual surface of the side rail and roof or by using a flexible tape to bridge the groove and measure along the "nominal" surface between Point 3 and Point 4. You further note that if the latter course is followed that BPR will be located on a point in space and ask how you should proceed in relocating BPR so that it is located on the surface of the vehicle interior.

If, as is the case with the vehicle represented in the drawings attached to your letter, the radius of curvature of the groove or indentation located between Point 3 and Point 4 is such that the forehead impact zone of the FMH could not contact any point beneath the nominal surface, BPR should be located by measuring along that nominal surface.

NHTSA stated, at page 16723 of the final rule published on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718), that measurements along trim with small convolutions, gaps or depressions would be made nominal to the surface. If following that direction and measuring along the nominal surface results in BPR being located at a point in space rather than on the interior surface of the vehicle, target BP1 must be relocated but BPR must remain in its original location.

In cases where the forehead impact zone of the FMH cannot make contact with a target point, S10(b) provides a procedure for relocating targets within a 25 millimeter sphere centered at the original target:

(b) Except as specified in S10(c), if there is no combination of horizontal and vertical angles specified in S8.13.4 at which the forehead impact zone of the free motion headform can contact one of the targets located using the procedures in S10.1 through S10.13, the center of that target is moved to any location within a sphere with a radius of 25 mm, centered on the center of the original target and measured along the vehicle interior, which the forehead impact zone can contact at one or more combination of angles.

If it is still not possible for the forehead impact zone to make contact within the sphere described in S10(b), S10(c) provides that the sphere may be expanded in 25 mm increments until contact can be made.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5263 or through electronic mail at omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:207
d.5/13/98

ID: aiam2793

Dear Mr. Iinuma: This responds to Nissan Motor Company's March 9, 1978, request fo confirmation that section 581.5(c)(9) of Part 581, *Bumper Standard*, does not prohibit deformation of 'hood ledge' sheet metal which is spot welded to the reinforced panel that transfers bumper impact forces from the bumper shock absorber unit to the vehicle frame.; As I understand the function and location of the 'hood ledge' shee metal, it is not a component of the vehicle that is regulated by Part 581. It is not an exterior surface of the vehicle or any of the other components or aspects of the vehicle regulated by paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8). It is also not a 'fastener or joint' regulated by paragraph (c)(9). With this understanding, the deformation you describe would not be prohibited by any portion of Part 581.; In a telephone conversation with Mr. Herlihy of this office, you aske if a prior interpretation to Nissan of the limitation on permissible 'dent' had been in error. Section 581.5(c)(11)(ii) states that dent is measured from a reference line 'connecting the bumper contours adjoining any such contact area'. Our December 1, 1977, interpretation to Nissan agreed that the line extends from any two points of contact of the impact ridge following impact, as opposed to contact just preceding impact. You noted a preamble discussion of May 12, 1977, (42 FR at 24058) that suggests a reference line be established across the area of impact prior to impact.; The preamble language you cited was only our suggestion of how manufacturer might establish a reference line for measurement purposes, rather than the 'definitional' line specified in the standard that establishes the dimensions of the dent. I would note that establishing this line prior to impact could greatly reduce the effective area which would qualify for treatment as a dent. For example, in the case of a convex surface the initial point of contact could be limited to the point of the impact ridge.; I would like to make another clarification of our December discussio on this point. While we agreed that the line designated 'D' would be the line specified by the standard, it appears that additional area (lying along the lower slope of the impact ridge) might have contacted the impact ridge during impact. The agency would consider this area to qualify as a portion of the dent area. It is because of such cases, where dynamic events affect the measurement, that the agency suggested the use of paint or another surface contact marking mechanism to measure areas of contact.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2003

Dear Mr. Keettel: This is in response to your letter of July 15, 1975, commenting o several aspects of the odometer disclosure regulation (49 CFR Part 580, *Odometer Disclosure Requirements*).; You suggested that the term 'transferor,' defined in S 580.3 of th odometer regulation, poses a potential problem for a person who transfers ownership of a motor vehicle by gift to a member of his family and fails to execute an odometer disclosure statement. In your opinion, the attractive civil penalty available for noncompliance with the disclosure requirements might expose such a transferor to suit by his transferee despite the need to demonstrate intent to defraud as a prerequisite to recovery.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no agree with your comment. Section 402(3) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) defines the term 'transfer' as a change of ownership by purchase, *gift*, or any other means (emphasis added). Section 408 of the Act orders the Department of Transportation to prescribe rules requiring any transferor to give an odometer disclosure statement to the transferee in connection with the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. Thus, the law mandates the execution of an odometer disclosure statement even when the transfer of ownership is by gift.; Since intent to defraud must be shown in order to obtain recovery unde the Act, it is doubtful that someone who innocently fails to provide a disclosure form would suffer the consequences imposed by the Act. It is important that disclosure statements be executed at each point a vehicle changes hands as a means of protecting individuals in the chain of ownership. Once it is discovered that an odometer has been altered, the owner of the vehicle may name all prior owners as defendants in his suit and the disclosure form may be the only absolute evidence of one's innocence. Thus, the Act's requirement that a disclosure statement be provided, even in the case of an intra-family gift, has a definite basis. The 'intent to defraud' aspect of the penalty section serves as a safeguard against abuse.; You commented in your letter that a loophole exists in section 580.5(b making it possible for new car dealers to transfer vehicles without executing a disclosure statement. Your understanding of the section is incorrect. A new car dealer is required to complete an odometer disclosure statement whenever he transfers ownership of a vehicle to a person for purposes other than resale. This means that the only time a disclosure form is unnecessary (under S 580.5(b)) is when the vehicle is transferred between parties for the purpose of resale. An example of this type of transfer is between a distributor and a dealer.; In your letter you cite possible problems involving the point at whic the disclosure statement must be executed, the conspicuousness of the statement, and the effect of the statement that the mileage indicated on the odometer differs from the true number of miles the vehicle has traveled. S 580.4 requires that the disclosure statement be furnished to the transferee of a vehicle before any transfer of ownership document is executed. In the preamble to the regulation, the agency explained this to mean that the disclosure must be made as part of the transfer, and not at some later time. This assures that the transferee will be made aware of the odometer mileage and its accuracy before he obtains ownership of the vehicle.; Although there is no requirement that the odometer statement b provided as a separate document, it is necessary that all of the required information be contained on some form which is provided to the transferee. There is, of course, no way of assuring that a transferee will examine all of the papers handed to him when he takes ownership of a vehicle. However, since the disclosure document must include a considerable amount of current information on the vehicle, it is likely that transferee (sic) will be aware of the filling out of the form.; The statement included on the form relating to the accuracy of th odometer mileage is phrased in positive terms and states that the mileage indicated on the odometer *is* incorrect, not that it *may* be incorrect. The odometer disclosure requirements are intended to assure that a transferee is aware of the accuracy of his vehicle's odometer mileage. If the transferor indicates that the mileage is incorrect, he has put the purchaser on notice and the purchaser from that point assumes the risk of owning a vehicle whose mileage is uncertain. It seems unlikely that a certification that the mileage is incorrect would be overlooked as might happen with 'fine print' since the transferor must make a mark by the statement showing its applicability. This, it would seem, would draw one's attention to the warning.; Thank you for your comments. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel