Consumer Information; National Academy of Sciences' Study

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