ID: aiam4434

"Dear Mr. Momboisse: Your letter of May 19, 1988, to the Genera Counsel of the Department of Transportation has been forwarded to this Office for reply. You request a waiver 'exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchased directly from the manufacturer, AM General Corporation.' This response is based upon the information contained in your letter, and upon information my staff has obtained in telephone conversations with Ed Butkera of AM General Corporation, manufacturer of the Hummer, relating to its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Gary Runyon of the Border Patrol, relating to the mission of that agency and the role the Hummer plays in it. According to our information, the Hummer is a vehicle which was developed specifically for, manufactured for, and sold exclusively to, the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol has bought Hummers from the Army because of certain features it finds advantageous in its operations, and its expanded missions involving interdiction of drugs. The principal reasons for your request are (1) that the Border Patrol desires to buy Hummers equipped with an assembly line addition (a central tire inflation system) is not incorporated on the Hummers sold to the Army, and (2) that, by buying directly from AM General Corporation, the Border Patrol will save $5,000 per vehicle, as the price of Army Hummers reflects the added expense of amortized development costs. This agency has jurisdiction over 'motor vehicles' as that term is defined by l5 U.S.C. 139l(3). If a vehicle is not a 'motor vehicle,' then the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to it. The exclusion of military vehicles from applicability of the safety standards in 49 C.F.R. 57l.7(a), which you quoted, is operative only if those vehicles would otherwise be 'motor vehicles' required to comply with the standards. Under l5 U.S.C. 1391(3), a 'motor vehicle' is 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways....' The agency has interpreted this definition to exclude such vehicles as minibikes, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, single seat racing cars used on closed courses, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and farm tractors. On the other hand, the agency has included in the definition farm trailers which haul produce over the public roads to processing centers, stock cars modified for racing unless such modifications are so extensive that the vehicle can no longer be licensed for use on the public roads, and vehicles capable of use both on rails and the public roads. You have informed us that the Hummer will 'generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas.' However, you have also informed us that this will constitute approximately 30% of its operational time. Were we to consider this factor alone, we could not conclude that the Hummer was not a 'motor vehicle.' However, there are further factors that make the proper classification of the Hummer a close question. The Hummer was developed as a vehicle for military operations and not for civilian applications, its manufacturer does not advertise or sell it for civilian purposes, and its configuration is such that it probably could not be licensed for use on the public roads without modification of some of its original military specifications. Resolution of this question is not necessary since the mission and method of operation of the Border Patrol provide a separate basis for concluding that the Hummers to be purchased by the Border Patrol are not subject to the FMVSS. We understand that one of the missions of the Border Patrol is to act as an agency of national security in protection of the country's borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations, and that this role has become of paramount importance in the 'war against drugs.' In this enforcement effort, the Hummers of necessity carry firearms such as the M-l4 and M-16 rifles which the Army Hummer carries, can be equipped with military communications equipment enabling them to serve as command posts, and carry certain military equipment used for electronic interception and sensing movement. It further appears that in this mission the Border Patrol is not only equipped like a component of the Armed Forces of the United States, but also is trained and functions in many respects that are similar to such a component. Accordingly, for the purposes of applying the exclusionary phrase of 49 CFR 571.7(a), it is appropriate to regard the Border Patrol as being akin to a component of the Armed Forces of the United States. In consideration of the foregoing, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that AM General Corporation will not be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if it manufactures and sells Hummers to the Border Patrol for its use as described in your letter. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: nht94-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: Scott R. Dennison -- Consultant, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TO: Administrator -- US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/20/94 from John Womack to Scott R. Dennison (A42; PART 555)

TEXT: Please find enclosed, three copies of the application for exemption on behalf of the Excalibur Automobile Corporation for the standard entitled, Petition For Exemption From The Requirements of FMVSS 208 Paragraph S4.1.4 Automatic Protection Systems.

The petition is written according to the guidelines set forth in 49CFR, part 555 entitled, Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

I trust that you will find the petition acceptable, however, should you have any questions or require any further clarification, I may be reached at 414-771-7171 or by fax a 414-771-8941.

4

PETITION OF TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF F.M.V.S.S. 208 PARAGRAPH S4.1.4 AUTOMATIC PROTECTION SYSTEMS

Prepared by: Scott R. Dennison

Consultant to: Excalibur Automobile Corporation 1735 S. 106th Street Milwaukee, WI 53214 414-771-7171 Fax: 414-771-8941

5

This petition is made according to the guidelines set down in 49CFR, Part 555, entitled 'Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety Standards'.

555.5 PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

This petition for temporary exemption from the requirements of FMVSS 208 is based on the inability of the low volume manufacturer, Excalibur Automobile Corporation, to obtain safety components necessary to produce a compliant vehicle.

555.5.(3)

Applicant: Excalibur Automobile Corporation 1735 S. 106th Street Milwaukee, WI 53214

Telephone: 414-771-7171 Telefax: 414-771-8941 Organization: Corporation

State: Wisconsin

555.5.(4)

Standard from which exemption is sought: FMVSS 208, paragraph S4.1.4 requiring an automatic vehicle protection system.

Desired length of exemption: One year from date of approval

Model for which exemption is sought: Excalibur Cobra 427

6

The basis for this petition for temporary exemption from FMVSS 208 on behalf of Excalibur Automobile Corporation and its model, the Cobra 427, is founded in the fact that Excalibur is unable to design, purchase, joint venture, contract for, or otherwise obtain the necessary components to fit air bag restraint systems in this vehicle.

Since the inception of this replica of the classic Shelby Cobra 427, Excalibur has tried to find a source for the necessary air bag components in order to fit them to the vehicle. A firm in Arizona was contacted in December of 1993 as they had claimed t o have an air bag system designed to retro-fit to older vehicles as well as limited production vehicles. The company, BST of Phoenix Arizona even had displayed the system at the 1993 SEMA show in Las Vegas.

Excalibur was continually advised that the system existed, had been sold in great quantity to a major airline and would be available within weeks. Groundwork for a joint development program was discussed with Excalibur to be the first small manufacturer to use the bags as OE on their Cobra. The system has never been released to Excalibur nor to anyone Excalibur is aware of to date.

In parallel to the ongoing negotiations with BST regarding air bag systems, Breed Technologies was contacted to develop a program for the creation of a system for Excalibur. Months of telephone contact yielded no results. To the extreme that eventually , project leaders at Breed refused to even take time to quote a development project as the ultimate volumes possible would not be worthwhile to Breed to justify such a project. No other sources of air bag technology have been found as alternatives for E xcalibur.

Equivalent Safety

Excalibur's Cobra 427 has a Type II manual seat belt system in place which meets all standards for such type systems. Model year 1994 offers three convertible vehicles which do not have air bag systems but offer passive belt systems and therefore are fo und to be compliant. These vehicles are the Dodge Viper, the Nissan 240 SX, and the Plymouth Sunbird. Although these systems meet the letter of the law, all require long belts which remain attached to the door when opened requiring the driver and passe nger to slide under the belts in order for them to be "passive". All real world experience has shown these type systems to be awkward and undesirable to the consumer when used in convertible model vehicles. The ability to "dis-able" these systems be me rely unbuckling the belt has virtually converted these systems to conventional Type II seat belt systems.

7

It is based on this logic that Excalibur Automobile Corporation maintains that their Cobra 427 provides a level of safety equivalent to these three compliant model vehicles.

Exceptional Safety Features

Excalibur Automobile Corporation offers a high strength roll over bar as standard equipment on the Cobra 427 to enhance the over level of safety for the general public in the event of a roll over type crash.

In addition, the materials used in the construction of the Cobra frame and steel components far exceeds any used in conventional automobile manufacturing. For instance, the door hinge system incorporated in the Excalibur Cobra has been tested to exceed the FMVSS by over four times the required strength.

Substantiation

There is no claim by Excalibur that the vehicle would be unsalable by compliance with the standard but merely that Excalibur does not posses the technology and to date, cannot purchase the technology required to comply with this standard.

Excalibur Automobile Corporation fully intends to comply with this standard at the end of the exemption period for one of either of two reasons. They are currently developing a passive belt system for implementation as soon as possible. In addition, it is believed that generic air bag technology from either the U.S. manufacturers or those abroad will become available to manufacturers such as Excalibur within the allotted exemption period thus enabling them to fit air bags to the vehicles.

Excalibur Automobile Corporation will produce less than 100 vehicles for sale in the world-wide market during the 12 months this exemption is in place.

ID: aiam0391

Dear Mr. Krueger: This is in response to your petition for rulemaking of June 28, 1971 You requested that Standard No. 208 be amended to allow the seat belt warning switch to be installed in the buckle instead of the retractor.; The action on petitions for reconsideration issued on July 2, 1971, i effect granted your request, allowing the warning shut-off to be keyed to webbing withdrawal or buckle closure.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1994

FROM: Paul L. Anderson -- President, Van-Con Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Reflective Tape "Outlined Around Its Perimeter" For Emergency Rear Doors On Type A-1 Sixteen & Twenty Passenger School Buses Under 10,000 Lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight.

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To Paul Anderson (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Thank you for your clairification of my questions May 2, 1994 letter. You stated that the Emergency Rear Doors of Type A-1 School Buses must be outlined around the perimeter with reflective tape. This brings up a question of tape installation due to th e existance of door hinges, O.E.M. tail light position, and the proximate position of Rear Door bottom edge to bumper.

There is no problem with installing reflective tape across the top and above both doors (see enclosed picture of rear doors on color brochure). There is also no problem running the tape down the left and right sides of the two doors, although the tape w ould not be continuous due to door hinges and the tail light lenses. Tape on the hinges would not last long because water, dirt, snow and ice would get behind it and lift it off also it would be a mess. The tail light lens comes within less that 1/2 in ch of door edge and I don't think it would be a good idea to run the tape over the tail light lens.

The bottom of the Emergency Rear Doors closes on a rubber gasket that touch the anti-hitch filler strip that closes the gap between the bumper and the bus body so there is no place to put reflective tape on the outside perimeter of the door bottom unless it is put on the bottom of the doors in which case it would not be on the "outside perimeter".

Question: Would we be in compliance with Reflective Tape requirements of FMVSS 217 if we put a continous strip of tape across the top of both Emergency Rear Doors on the roof cap above the doors and downthe left and right side of the double door opening with breaks in the tape for door hinges & tail light lenses. This would outline the Emergency Rear Doors on three sides. No tape would be put across the bottom?

As an alternative, if the above is not acceptable, could we put tape across the bottom on the doors?

Very truly yours,

ID: aiam0926

Dear Mr. Sharp: This is in reply to your letter of September 25, 1972. You hav enclosed a copy of a letter from Suzuki Motor Company, Ltd., dated September 14, 1972, in which it objects to the certification label that you propose to attach to Suzuki trucks imported by you for sale. The label shows Suzuki as the manufacturer and Intercontinental Equipment Corporation (IEC) as the importer of the trucks.; Suzuki bases its objection on the fact that: >>>'. . . the vehicles as manufactured by Suzuki does (sic) not confor to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards *in effect on the date of manufacture*, and it will be misrepresentation by our company to make such statement.'<<<; Suzuki also comments 'the responsibility for compliance rests sorel (sic) on both IEC and Yachiyoda but this fact is not clearly shown on the label.'; This agency's position is that the certification scheme you hav described is an appropriate one for imported vehicles that have been modified after manufacture to conform to the standards.; We do not consider the certification label necessarily to be representation by the original manufacturer. The question of who is responsible for the correctness of the certification, and for conformity, must be decided on the facts of the individual case. In this case, the representation is by IEC, not Suzuki, and IEC is responsible for conformity of the vehicle.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0925

Dear Mr. Sharp: This is in reply to your letter of September 25, 1972. You hav enclosed a copy of a letter from Suzuki Motor Company, Ltd., dated September 14, 1972, in which it objects to the certification label that you propose to attach to Suzuki trucks imported by you for sale. The label shows Suzuki as the manufacturer and Intercontinental Equipment Corporation (IEC) as the importer of the trucks.; Suzuki bases its objection on the fact that: >>>'. . . the vehicles as manufactured by Suzuki does (sic) not confor to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards *in effect on the date of manufacture*, and it will be misrepresentation by our company to make such statement.'<<<; Suzuki also comments 'the responsibility for compliance rests sorel (sic) on both IEC and Yachiyoda but this fact is not clearly shown on the label.'; This agency's position is that the certification scheme you hav described is an appropriate one for imported vehicles that have been modified after manufacture to conform to the standards.; We do not consider the certification label necessarily to be representation by the original manufacturer. The question of who is responsible for the correctness of the certification, and for conformity, must be decided on the facts of the individual case. In this case, the representation is by IEC, not Suzuki, and IEC is responsible for conformity of the vehicle.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3062

Dear Ms. Lindsey: This responds to your letter of July 9, 1979, concerning Federal Moto Vehicle SAfety Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impacts*.; Your research concerning the history of the standard is correct. Th first notice of proposed rule making on Standard No. 201 (31 F.R. 15212, December 3, 1966) proposed a definition and requirements for the 'unrestrained child impact area.' When the standard was originally issue in final form (32 FR 2408, February 3, 1967), the unrestrained child impact area definition and requirements were deleted. In the same issue of the *Federal Register*, the agency issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking stating that it intended to develop requirements to reduce impact hazards for unrestrained children (32 FR 2417). Although the agency did not subsequently publish any additional notices on Standard No. 201 specifically developed for the unrestrained child, the agency continued work on Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and developed Standard No. 213, *Child Seating Systems*, both of which provide improved protection for children riding in motor vehicles.; The agency is currently studying the potential benefits of built-i interior padding, child restraint devices and other means of making the vehicle rear seat a safe environment for child transportation. This work may provide the basis for future rulemaking.; You are also correct that there were administrative law hearings hel on Standard No. 201. The record of those hearings, which were held May 22 and 23, 1967, in Detroit, Michigan, and may 24 and 25, 1967, in Washington, D.C., can be found in Docket 1, microfilm roll number 2. Please contact Ms. Hardee (426-2768) of the agency's docket section to make arrangements to view this material.; I hope this information will be of assistance. If you have an additional questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht72-2.1

DATE: 07/18/72

FROM: CHARLES H. HARTMAN FOR DOUGLAS W. TOMS -- NHTSA

TO: Consumers Union

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 28, 1972, forwarding to us a report to be published in the August issue of Consumer Reports, which raises numerous issues concerning child restraints and the efficacy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Seating Systems." You contend, based on testing you performed, that the static performance tests of the standard are meaningless, and that dynamic tests should be adopted.

We agree that a dynamic test should be included in the standard, and we discuss below our efforts and intentions in this regard. We also believe, however, that devices which conform to Standard No. 213 provide significant impact protection for children which is not available otherwise, and that the present standard has served a useful purpose in the development of effective child restraints and the removal from the marketplace of marginal products. We have pursued a vigorous enforcement policy with respect to the standard which has discovered and corrected numerous cases of noncompliance.

The 1,000-pound static test imposed by Standard No. 213 was determined by the NHTSA to be an adequate first step in the development of standards for child seating systems. This determination was based, in part, on the state of the art of the development of these devices, and the financial resources of the affected industry. The limitations of the static test have been known for some time, and in the NHTSA Program Plan for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, published in October 1971, the NHTSA made clear its intention to develop a dynamic test to measure the performance of all child restraint devices.

We believe the most effective way to utilize a dynamic test is to couple it with realistic injury criteria that reflect the ability of children to withstand crash impacts. This is the approach taken for adults by Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Although we have developed adult injury criteria as part of our work on that standard, further work must be done to correlate these criteria with the protection needed for children.

Rather than delay dynamic testing until this work is completed, however, the NHTSA plans to propose interim dynamic tests using other performance criteria which are presently being developed through research at the University of Michigan. We are also sponsoring othe research on the problem of the development of realistic child dummies. Another problem in the development of a dynamic test for child seating systems, or any other performance requirements for them, is that the performance of the child seat is in large measure dependent upon the design and construction of the vehicle in which it is placed. Because manufacturers can market these devices economically only if they are suitable for large numbers of vehicles, an endless number of variables occur, with a resultant difficulty in prescribing reasonable "worst case" test conditions.

We are presently working to provide answers to these questions, and are hopeful that the research projects presently under way will provide data in the near future on which we can proceed. You mention that you will be submitting to us a petition for rulemaking regarding the standard. We request that you also submit to us any data which you have available, including data from your testing program, which might assist us in solving these problems.

ID: 86-6.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robin Leeds

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Executive Director Connecticut Operators of School Transportation Association 133 Jerome Avenue Burlington, CT 06013

Dear Ms. Leeds:

This responds to your letter concerning the height of front bumpers on school buses. According to your letter, school bus regulations for the state of Connecticut require front bumpers on all school buses to be located 18 inches from the ground. Since the bumpers on standard chassis are placed several inches higher than this, your bus body dealers must remove the bumpers and reposition them, add an additional piece to the existing bumper to make the bottom edge lower, or use an alternate bumper. I regret the delay in answering your letter.

You are interested in a revision to Connecticut's requirements for school bus bumpers, which would require a bumper height that corresponds to the height used by chassis manufacturers: thereby avoiding the need to reposition or replace original bumpers. However: the state Department of Motor Vehicles believes that the 18 inch height: corresponding to the height of a passenger car bumper, is safer since it prevents override of an automobile. You asked three questions related to this issue, which I have addressed below.

I would like to begin with some background information on our bumper standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued its Part 581 Bumper Standard pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings Act) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Vehicle Safety Act). The standard establishes requirements for impact resistance in low-speed front and rear collisions and includes a bumper height requirement. The bumper height requirement prevents override in collisions with other vehicles subject to the standard.

The standard applies to "passenger motor vehicles other than muitipurpose passenger vehicles." The term "passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles" generally corresponds to passenger cars. Title I of the Cost Savings Act specifically excludes trucks and larger buses from any bumper standards and allows multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) to be exempted from the bumper standard. I believe you are interested in the large: standard school buses to which the standard does not apply.

You first asked whether it would be safer if school bus bumpers Here kept at the position originally utilized by the chassis manufacturer. We are not aware at this time of any indications that it is safer to retain the bumper in its original position. However: NHTSA does not have sufficient data at this time to evaluate the safety effects of lowering the bumper. Chassis manufacturers may have considered practical reasons for positioning their bumpers in the manner they have done: since trucks and buses sometimes require greater ground clearance than passenger cars to negotiate ramps and to clear obstacles associated with off-road operation.

Your second question asked whether repositioning or replacing the bumper would affect compliance of the school bus with our motor vehicle safety standards. As you might know: persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards.

A dealer that modified the bumper of a school bus: prior to its first sale, would thus be required to certify that the school bus: as altered: complies with all applicable safety standards. A violation of the Vehicle Safety Act would occur if an alterer modified the school bus in such a way that the vehicle no longer complied with an applicable standard. Since the school bus's continued compliance with applicable safety standards depends on many factors, such as the design of the school bus and the nature of work performed on the vehicle: dealers modifying school bus bumpers might want to contact the vehicle manufacturer to learn if any standards might be affected by the lowering of the bumper and obtain any information needed to make the required certification.

Your third question asked "What, if any, liability is incurred by a dealer who removes the original bumper and repositions or replaces it? And if there is an implied liability, how can the dealer protect himself?"

Violations of Vehicle Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1000 per violation, with a maximum fine of 5800:000 for a related series of violations. A dealer altering a school bus can protect Itself from such liability by ensuring that It complies with all relevant Federal requirements.

The issue of possible liability in tort is a matter of state law rather than Federal law. Therefore, we suggest that you consult a local attorney on this question.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions,

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Diedre Hom Chief Counsel's Office National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Hom:

Bob Williams referred me to you for a possible answer to my inquiry regarding dealer liability.

School bus regulations for the state of Connecticut require that front bumpers on all school buses be located at a height of eighteen inches from the ground. Since the bumpers on standard chassis are placed several inches higher than this, it means that our bus body dealers must remove the bumpers and reposition them, add an additional piece to the existing bumper to make the bottom edge lower, or use an alternate bumper.

We are currently revising the school bus regulations and have suggested standardizing the front bumper height. The state Department of Motor Vehicles, however, continues to believe that the eighteen inch height, corresponding to the height of a passenger car bumper, is safer since it prevents override of an automobile.

I have two questions which I hope you can answer:

1. Is there a legitimate justification for leaving the front bumper on school buses as it is placed by the chassis manufacturer?

What, if any, liability is incurred by a dealer who removes the original bumper and repositions or replaces it? And if there is an implied liability, how can the dealer protect himself?

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Robin Leeds Executive Director

P.S. A third question: Does the bus still meet federal standards after the bumper has been modified?

ID: bmw102-1.pja

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica
General Manger, Environmental Engineering
BMW of North America, Inc.
BMW Plaza
Montvale, NJ 07645-1866

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. Specifically, you ask whether a park control that is actuated by a separate control instead of by the movement of the transmission shift lever is part of the transmission shift lever sequence. You also ask whether such a park position must be located at the end, adjacent to reverse.

Paragraph S3.1.1 of Standard No 102, Location of transmission shift lever positions on passenger cars, states, in part " . . . If the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, it shall be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position." [emphasis added.]

Paragraph S3.1.1 explicitly limits the requirement to those park positions included within the "shift lever sequence." It is our interpretation that if park is not selected by the movement of the shift lever, then the park control is not part of the shift lever sequence. In this case, the sentence quoted above does not apply, and the park control does not have to be located at the end, adjacent to reverse.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:102
d.9/25/98