[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
