[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27648-27653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13185]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. 97-29; Notice 01]


Consumer Information; National Academy of Sciences' Study

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice summarizes a recent study by the National Academy 
of Sciences titled ``Shopping for Safety--Providing Consumer Automotive 
Safety Information.'' The study makes a number of recommendations to 
NHTSA on ways to improve automobile safety information for consumers. 
This notice requests comments on NHTSA's response to the 
recommendations of this study and on programs NHTSA has begun or is 
considering to address these recommendations. NHTSA is requesting 
comments because it wishes to develop these programs in cooperation 
with other interested parties.

DATES: Comment Date: Comments must be received by August 18, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of 
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Versailles, NPS-31, Office of 
Safety Performance Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 
Versailles can be reached by phone at (202) 366-2057 or by facsimile at 
(202) 366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    As part of the agency's regulatory reform commitment, and the 
formation of the Planning and Review Division in Safety Performance 
Standards (NPS), a comprehensive review of NHTSA's motor vehicle safety 
consumer information programs has been undertaken. This activity 
reflects the agency's increased focus on consumer information 
complementing the traditional engineering standards focus of its 
rulemaking function.
    In 1994, NHTSA held four town meetings as part of the reform 
effort. The purpose of these meetings was to let NHTSA hear directly 
from the public what kind of automobile safety

[[Page 27649]]

information they want and how NHTSA can best provide it to them. Based 
on some of the comments at these meetings, consumers want more 
information about available safety features, expanded outreach for 
NHTSA's safety information, and an overall safety rating for vehicles.
    As part of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-331; September 30, 1994), Congress 
provided NHTSA funds ``for a study to be conducted by the National 
Academy of Sciences (NAS) of motor vehicle safety consumer information 
needs and the most cost effective methods of communicating this 
information.'' The NAS study was completed and released to the public 
on March 26, 1996. It is titled ``Shopping for Safety--Providing 
Consumer Automotive Safety Information,'' TRB Special Report 248. Based 
on its findings, the study makes recommendations to NHTSA on ways to 
improve automobile safety information for consumers. The 
recommendations are classified in three categories: Improvements to 
Existing Information, Development of Summary Measures, and Development 
of a Process to Stimulate Better Consumer Safety Information and Safer 
Cars.
    Using the NAS recommendations and input from the public meetings as 
a guide, NPS is striving to improve significantly the motor vehicle 
safety consumer information that NHTSA provides to the American public. 
This notice summarizes the NAS study and requests comments on NHTSA's 
response to the recommendations of this study. NHTSA is also requesting 
comment on some specific ongoing and planned programs that address 
these recommendations.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The notice only discusses programs of the Planning and 
Review division in NPS. Consumer information programs in other NHTSA 
offices are not discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improvements to Existing Information

    In the short term, the study recommends that NHTSA provide 
consumers with more explicit information on: the importance of vehicle 
size and weight; the benefits of (and proper use of) safety features 
such as seat belts and anti-lock brakes; the frequency of crash types 
for which test results are available; and the uncertainties associated 
with crash test results. The study also recommends that NHTSA establish 
the reliability of crash test results and identify the source(s) of 
variance in those results. The final short-term recommendation is that 
NHTSA improve the presentation and dissemination of existing safety 
information by increasing awareness of the availability of this 
information and by making the information more accessible.
    NHTSA agrees with all of these recommendations except the 
recommendation to establish the reliability of crash test results and 
identify the source(s) of variance in those results. In 1984, NHTSA 
thoroughly examined this issue with respect to the New Car Assessment 
Program (NCAP) and implemented changes to reduce test variability, such 
as more consistent placement of the test dummy and the initiation of an 
instrument auditing system. However, crash tests will always have some 
variability. A star rating system was introduced for NCAP in 1994. This 
system further reduces the influence of variability in that vehicles 
with a range of numerical dummy readings have the same star rating. 
Usually, the star ratings given by the manufacturer and NHTSA are 
different only if the vehicle's numerical rating is on the border of 
the range of scores for a star rating.
    NHTSA agrees with the recommendations to provide more consumer 
information and to improve the presentation and dissemination of 
consumer information. NHTSA will continue efforts in existing areas, 
including long-term programs related to the benefits and proper use of 
safety belts and in more recent efforts to address issues regarding 
children and air bags. Information on the frequency of various crash 
types (frontal, side, rear, rollover) are available. NHTSA will look at 
ways to make that information and other information more accessible by 
broadening the dissemination outlets that the agency uses.
    NHTSA plans improvements to two existing consumer brochures, the 
Uniform Tire Quality Grading brochure and ``Buying a Safer Car.'' The 
Uniform Tire Quality Grading brochure was developed in 1986 to provide 
information to consumers on what they should look for when purchasing 
new tires. It answers some common questions consumers ask about tire 
grades, treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. A final rule 
was published in September 1996, adding a higher grade for traction. 
NHTSA plans to update the brochure to include the additional grade and 
provide consumers with additional tire safety tips. If appropriate, a 
public service announcement (PSA) may be developed to compliment the 
information provided in the brochure.
    Beginning with model year 1995 vehicles, NHTSA, in cooperation with 
the American Automobile Association (AAA) and Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC), has published the ``Buying a Safer Car'' brochure. The brochure 
contains NCAP crash test results and safety feature information for new 
motor vehicles.
    The ``Buying a Safer Car'' brochure is being updated for model year 
1997. For example, the safety feature section will be modified as one 
feature highlighted in previous brochures, side impact protection, is 
now mandatory for all vehicles. Also, in its fiscal year 1997 budget, 
NHTSA received money to conduct side impact testing in a program 
similar to the NCAP program (this program is referred to as side impact 
NCAP). The crash test result section will be modified to add crash test 
results for the new side impact NCAP program.
    NHTSA is examining ways to increase the number of copies 
distributed from previous years. The brochure will be advertised in new 
areas to reach additional audiences. The NAS study also recommends that 
safety information be available in dealer showrooms. NHTSA is 
interested in comments on the usefulness of having this and other 
safety materials available at the showroom for prospective buyers.
    In addition, building on the success of ``Buying a Safer Car,'' a 
new brochure titled ``Buying a Safer Car for Child Passengers'' is 
under development. The brochure will inform consumers on the hazards 
that air bags present to children and provide advice on other vehicle 
features that can increase the safety of children in vehicles. The 
brochure will identify vehicles that have special equipment, such as 
built-in child seats and manual air bag cut-off switches that enhance 
children's safety, and discuss features car buyers can watch for to 
decrease the chance of vehicle/child seat incompatibility. Like 
``Buying a Safer Car,'' the agency hopes that the new brochure will be 
a joint effort with groups such as child transportation safety 
advocates, AAA, and other national organizations.
    NHTSA is also planning other new consumer information programs. One 
such program would be the development of consumer information materials 
on preventing motor vehicle theft. Specifically, a theft prevention PSA 
designed to alert consumers to remove their keys from their vehicle's 
ignition, to lock the doors, and other tips to prevent vehicle theft 
will be developed. In addition, a brochure will be created to give 
consumers information on how they can help deter theft; information on 
the types of programs in place in various states that

[[Page 27650]]

are helping to reduce and deter vehicle theft, and/or designed to 
enhance the recovery of vehicles; a list of the top 20 most stolen 
vehicles; desirable components of an antitheft system; and a list of 
the vehicle lines with agency-approved antitheft systems.2 
Again, this could be a collaborative effort between NHTSA and other 
public and private sector organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Manufacturers of vehicles classified as high theft vehicle 
lines must inscribe or affix vehicle identification numbers on 
certain major original equipment and replacement parts. 
Manufacturers may petition NHTSA to exempt high theft vehicle lines 
from this requirement if all vehicles in the line are equipped, as 
standard equipment, with an antitheft device that NHTSA has 
determined is likely to be as effective as parts marking to reduce 
vehicle theft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another new project concerns rollover. There are over 200,000 
rollover crashes involving light duty passenger vehicles annually. 
These result in over 9,000 fatalities and over 50,000 serious, 
incapacitating injuries. Rollover crashes occur for many reasons and 
involve the interaction of a variety of factors including the driver, 
the roadway, the vehicle, and environmental conditions. NHTSA is 
pursuing a broad range of actions to address the rollover problem as 
part of its comprehensive rollover plan. Many of these actions are of a 
technical nature, however, consumer information activities which change 
the behavior of drivers and occupants can also reduce the rollover rate 
(e.g., driving too fast for road conditions) or can lessen the injuries 
and fatalities if a rollover occurs (e.g., wearing safety belts). In 
addition to some of the existing consumer information actions, the 
agency would like to develop a video to highlight ``do's and don'ts'' 
in common situations that result in rollover crashes or increase 
injuries when a rollover occurs.
    With regard to the importance of vehicle size and weight, NHTSA 
believes that most consumers have an understanding that a larger and/or 
heavier vehicle is safer for the occupants of that vehicle.3 
Some information on effect of vehicle size and weight is included in 
NHTSA information, for example, NCAP press releases. NHTSA will explore 
whether anything can be added to this information to make it more 
useful to consumers. NHTSA is interested in any suggestions for ways to 
present this information to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Conversely, in a collision, a larger, heavier vehicle 
decreases the safety for occupants of the smaller, lighter vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the area of proper use of vehicle safety features, NHTSA will 
look at ways to disseminate more information. Educational materials, in 
the form of PSAs, brochures, and consumer advisories, will be developed 
to ensure the driver understands correct driving behavior and is able 
to interact properly with the system. For example, drivers are not 
fully educated on whether their vehicles have anti-lock brakes (ABS) 
and, if so, how properly to use these systems. Another area where an 
educational program can address misuse of safety features is proper use 
and positioning of head restraints.
    NHTSA will continue recent efforts to improve presentation and 
dissemination of consumer information materials. On November 27, 1996, 
NHTSA published a final rule amending Standards No. 208 and 213 to 
require new, attention-getting warning labels for vehicles without 
advanced passenger-side air bags and for rear-facing child seats. The 
labels were part of a comprehensive plan the agency is undertaking to 
reduce the adverse effects of air bags, especially the adverse effects 
for children. As part of the process leading to these amendments, the 
agency conducted focus groups to test public reaction to possible 
changes to the labels. NHTSA will continue to do qualitative research, 
including focus groups to learn more about what type of information is 
useful and how it can best be presented. NHTSA believes the use of 
focus groups in this rulemaking helped to ensure that the information 
on the labels was understandable to consumers and increased the chance 
that the labels could affect consumer behavior.
    On October 1, 1995, NHTSA introduced a home page on the Internet. 
This medium has provided the agency with an opportunity to greatly 
advance automotive safety by enabling people to more easily access 
agency information. During the first month of 1997, over 8,000 users 
made over 50,000 queries to the NCAP database on the home 
page.4 The site has been redesigned since its opening to 
make it more interesting and helpful, and to increase ease of use. 
However, not everything is complete. NHTSA is continuing to make 
changes to convert files to more readable documents and will continue 
to add files to accommodate additional information. NHTSA is interested 
in working with other organizations that have web sites (e.g., 
manufacturers, insurance companies, or auto clubs) to provide links 
between those sites and NHTSA's site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The first number is much smaller than the second because a 
single user will typically query the database many times during a 
user session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA will work with other partners and customers, both internal 
and external, to provide information to consumers, similar to the 
successful partnership with the AAA and the FTC to produce the annual 
``Buying a Safer Car'' brochure. NHTSA has found that such activities 
are more beneficial to all when a more cooperative approach is used to 
resolve potential safety problems.
    Finally, responding to the President's directive for a new approach 
to the way government interacts with the private sector to improve the 
regulatory process, several public meetings have been held in the past 
few years with regard to vehicle-related safety issues. The agency has 
conducted public meetings on safety issues including mirrors, vehicle 
lamps and reflective devices, school bus safety, and heavy vehicle 
safety. Such public outreach meetings will continue to be held in the 
future.

Development of Summary Measures

    In the long term, the study recommends the development of one 
overall measure that combines relative importance of crashworthiness 
5 and crash avoidance 6 features for a vehicle. 
The study recognizes however, that, for the foreseeable future, summary 
measures of crashworthiness and crash avoidance must be presented 
separately due to differences in current level of knowledge, and 
differences in the roles of vehicle and driver in the two areas. For 
now, the NAS study recommends that the agency develop a summary measure 
of a vehicle's crashworthiness which incorporates quantitative 
information supplemented with the professional judgment of automotive 
experts, statisticians, and decision analysts. NHTSA should provide 
information with this measure to reflect the range of uncertainty in 
those judgments. For crash avoidance, the study recommends the 
development of a checklist of features for the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Crashworthiness refers to a vehicle's ability to protect 
occupants from serious injury or death when a crash occurs.
    \6\ Crash avoidance refers to a vehicle's ability to prevent a 
crash from occurring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The study also recommends that NHTSA present consumer information 
in a hierarchically organized approach. Such an approach would have the 
most highly summarized information on a vehicle label with a graphical 
display or on a checklist. This could be part of the current labels on 
new vehicles, or, preferably, a separate label focusing on safety 
information. The next level of information would be an accompanying 
brochure with more detailed explanations of the summary measures, 
information on the assumptions used in those calculations, etc. The 
most

[[Page 27651]]

detailed level would be a handbook with complete comparisons of all 
vehicles.
    Other longer term recommendations are the development of a 
multichannel approach to the dissemination of information, including 
NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline, the Internet, asking the insurance 
industry and automobile clubs to include information in their mailings, 
having NHTSA information printed in consumer journals, having safety 
information included in driver education courses, and public service 
announcements. The NAS study also recommends that the agency conduct 
research into consumer decision making and safety information 
requirements. The research would examine how consumers conceptualize 
auto safety, how consumers use safety information in choosing a 
vehicle, and how safety information can best be communicated and 
disseminated.
    NHTSA agrees in principle with all of these recommendations. 
Surveys of new car buyers indicate that safety has become an important 
factor in new car purchase decisions.7 In fact, over 75 
percent of the respondents in a recent NHTSA customer survey indicated 
that safety was a ``very important'' consideration in their vehicle 
purchase decision. As the NAS study points out, ``little systematic 
information is available on what consumers believe or understand about 
vehicle safety, or how and when they think about safety in choosing a 
vehicle.'' Accordingly, as recommended by the NAS study, research 
efforts will be conducted to determine what consumers believe about 
vehicle safety, how they think about safety in buying a vehicle, what 
information is most important, and how it can be best presented. The 
results of this research will provide the foundation for the 
development of NPS' future motor vehicle safety consumer information 
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1995 Customer 
Satisfaction Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA plans to conduct the research in two phases. In the first 
phase, the project will examine what consumers believe or understand 
about vehicle safety, their level of awareness of vehicle safety 
information and where such information is available, and how (if at 
all) they use such information in their decision to buy a particular 
vehicle. In the second phase, NHTSA will attempt to determine the most 
effective public information strategies and messages for reaching 
consumers through various media. Research will be conducted to 
determine what vehicle safety information is most helpful to consumers, 
how it can be best presented, and how can it best be introduced into 
the car-buying process.
    In fiscal year 1992, Congress asked NHTSA to provide consumers with 
easily understandable vehicle safety performance information. As a 
result of this request, beginning with model year 1994 vehicles, NHTSA 
has presented NCAP data using a star rating system. The system 
represents a vehicle's relative level of crash protection in a head-on 
collision, combining both head and chest injury data.
    For the first year of the new side impact NCAP program, NHTSA is 
using a star rating system. NHTSA is studying the possibility of 
combining frontal NCAP and side impact NCAP ratings into a single 
rating. This single rating would represent the vehicle's relative level 
of crash protection in both a head-on and side collision. Such a 
program could be a first step to a summary crashworthiness rating. 
Additional tests being researched by NHTSA now or in the future (e.g., 
offset frontal) could be added to such a rating in the future. The 
agency plans to perform research to determine whether consumers would 
find a combined rating useful and whether information conveyed by the 
star rating system is easily comprehended.
    In addition to the project to combine frontal NCAP and side impact 
NCAP data into a single rating, the agency has considered a number of 
approaches to exploring the NAS study recommendation that a 
comprehensive crashworthiness rating be developed. One approach would 
be a Federal Advisory Committee to develop a method that the agency or 
others could use to ``rate'' new vehicles. Such method would indicate 
what quantitative information should be used (both from NHTSA and from 
other sources), how such information should be combined, and how such 
information would be supplemented with expert judgement. Such a 
committee would have to be formally chartered before this action could 
begin. If a Federal Advisory Committee were used, the committee's 
recommendations would be advisory only.
    Another option would be for NHTSA to conduct a negotiated 
rulemaking. If an agreement as to a method were reached under this 
option, NHTSA would agree to propose a new consumer information 
regulation. However, a regulatory approach may be less desirable, as 
rulemaking to amend the regulation would have to be conducted whenever 
the state of knowledge is advanced enough to allow more defensible 
information and less expert judgement to be used in the rating system. 
NHTSA is particularly interested in comments on the process NHTSA 
should use to explore this recommendation.
    NHTSA has considered another alternative to the rating recommended 
by the NAS study. That alternative would involve the development of a 
standard means by which manufacturers would establish the degree to 
which a specific vehicle make/model exceeded the minimum requirements 
in the safety standards. Consumers would be able to use such 
information to make their own comparisons of various vehicles.
    With respect to the NAS study recommendation to develop a list of 
important crash avoidance features, NHTSA is considering going slightly 
beyond the study's recommendation. In developing the recommendations, 
the NAS study committee conducted a survey to test reaction to two 
summary rating labels. The crash avoidance information on both of the 
sample labels used by NAS provides comparative information on some 
crash avoidance features, rather than indicating only the presence or 
absence of the feature. This suggests that the NAS recommendation to 
develop a list of crash avoidance features is not the goal, but a 
beginning in a process to develop more specific information for 
consumers on the crash avoidance capabilities of vehicles.
    Using the new vehicle models to be crash tested in the NCAP 
program, NHTSA believes that some comparative crash avoidance 
information can be obtained. Prior to the crash test, additional tests 
could be performed on these vehicles without affecting the vehicles' 
usefulness for NCAP testing. Examples of such information would be 
comparative information on a vehicle's braking ability or lighting. In 
the area of braking, NHTSA plans to evaluate performance on curves with 
different peak coefficients of friction, as well as straight-line 
stopping distances on dry pavement. With respect to lighting, NHTSA 
plans to evaluate work that has been done by the industry to 
quantitatively assess how pleasing a headlamp beam pattern will be to 
vehicle purchasers. This would make additional comparative information 
on these vehicles available to consumers. The agency is interested in 
comments on the usefulness of comparative crash avoidance information 
and the type of information most desired by consumers. Based on the 
response received, research will be conducted to develop test protocols 
for additional attributes that could be measured on future NCAP 
vehicles.

[[Page 27652]]

    NHTSA particularly supports the NAS study's recommendation that 
consumer information be provided in different, hierarchical, levels of 
detail. First, NHTSA requests comments on the NAS study recommendation 
that safety information be labeled on new vehicles. Specifically, NHTSA 
asks about the preference for a new label separate from existing 
labels. If a respondent does not believe that this information should 
be on a vehicle label, NHTSA asks for comments on alternative means to 
provide this information to consumers.
    In addition, NHTSA is concerned that the owner's manual currently 
may contain too much and too detailed information for consumers to be 
able to locate the most important safety tips they should know and 
follow. Some manufacturers currently use a ``safety card,'' similar to 
the card found in airline passenger seat pockets to alert consumers to 
critical safety information. Using focus groups, NHTSA will explore the 
usefulness of such a card. We will also test ways to devise a format 
for such a card and how best to disseminate it. NHTSA plans to look at 
existing owner's manual requirements, especially those paired with a 
labeling requirement. Since many of these paired requirements are for 
the same information, NHTSA requests comments on whether the 
information should be solely in the owner's manual, solely on the 
label, or if the agency should require the owner's manual to present 
additional, more detailed information on the subject covered by the 
label.

Development of a Process to Stimulate Better Consumer Safety 
Information and Safer Cars

    The final recommendation of the study is the development of an 
organizational structure to create and disseminate consumer safety 
information and to provide a process to continuously improve the 
measures used to report vehicle performance and safety and, as a 
result, lead to safer cars. The study lists six attributes of a 
successful organization to achieve these ends: involvement of the major 
stakeholders (NHTSA, manufacturers, insurance industry, consumer 
groups), balance between responsiveness and independence, openness, 
continuity, funding, and feasibility. The study then lists the 
following five possible institutional arrangements: operation through 
existing NHTSA programs; operation through a new NHTSA Federal Advisory 
Committee (FAC); creation of a new public-private automotive safety 
institute; operation through the private sector; and operation through 
nongovernmental organizations (i.e., public interest groups). The study 
concludes that the two institutional arrangements with the highest 
probability of success are a new NHTSA FAC or a new public-private 
institute.
    For the immediate future, NHTSA will try to implement the 
recommendations of the NAS study through existing NHTSA programs, in 
particular the Planning and Review Division in the Office of Safety 
Performance Standards. NHTSA is not as skeptical as the NAS study about 
the chance of success with this approach, particularly as some named 
drawbacks are not inherent in the approach. For example, one named 
drawback involved the lack of participation of major stakeholders. 
However, in the rulemaking area, NHTSA is required by Federal law to 
provide notice of any action it is considering and to address any 
relevant comments received in response to that notice. Thus, in that 
area there is a process to allow all interested parties to participate. 
As noted in some of the discussions above, NHTSA also tries to ensure 
participation from outside interests in other projects even when not 
statutorily required. NHTSA believes it can at least reduce the effect 
of the named drawbacks by being aware of them when undertaking projects 
in this area.
    If a Federal Advisory Committee is used as the means to develop a 
summary crashworthiness measure, that activity will also allow NHTSA 
and other interested parties to evaluate the possibility of the use of 
a FAC for a broader approach to implementing the recommendations of the 
study. NHTSA is concerned about the recommendation to create a public-
private institute. First, as the study notes, such an activity would 
have a long start-up period and other approaches would be necessary in 
the interim. Second, while some of the stakeholders may be able to 
finance a large share of the costs of such an institute (i.e., 
manufacturers), others do not have such resources (i.e., consumer 
groups). Thus, NHTSA is concerned about whether the interests of all 
stakeholders could be fairly represented. However, NHTSA is interested 
in comments on any of the approaches addressed in the study, or in 
suggestions for other approaches.

Specific Requests for Comments

    When commenting on this notice, the agency requests that 
respondents address the following:
    (1) Indicate whether or not you support each NAS recommendation and 
the reasons why.
    (2) Identify those cases where you believe NHTSA's response to a 
NAS recommendation and/or NHTSA's planned consumer information 
activities to address the recommendation are inadequate or 
inappropriate. Discuss the basis for your position, in particular, if 
you believe NHTSA's response is inadequate, discuss what you believe is 
an appropriate response.
    (3) Identify additional actions not recommended by NAS that you 
believe NHTSA should undertake to improve motor vehicle safety consumer 
information.
    (4) Identify actions your organization would be willing to take, 
alone or in collaboration with NHTSA, to assist in implementing the NAS 
recommendations and improving motor vehicle safety consumer 
information.

Submission of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this notice. 
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
respondents to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a respondent wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available 
for examination in the docket at the above address both before and 
after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the 
closing date will also be considered. Comments will be available for 
inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue to file relevant 
information as it becomes available in the docket after the closing 
date, and it is recommended that interested persons continue to examine 
the docket for new material.

[[Page 27653]]

    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

    Issued on May 14, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-13185 Filed 5-15-97; 3:08 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P