ID: nht75-1.6

DATE: 02/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Feb. 11, 1975 N40-30

Mr. A. B. Kelley Senior Vice President Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Suite 300 600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20037

Dear Ben:

This is to confirm our understanding with respect to public meetings to be held on the subject of the Hydraulic Brake Standard, No. 105-75.

If any significant changes are to be made in the standard, a notice of proposed rulemaking will be issued. Toward the end of the comment period on that NPRM, the agency will hold a public hearing concerning the contents of the proposal. At that time you will have the opportunity to present your views in full.

Sincerely,

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-1.7

DATE: 02/07/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

N40-30 FEB 7 1975

Mr. Tatsuo Kato Staff, Safety Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. P. O. Box 1606 Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Kato:

This responds to your December 18, 1974, question whether the test procedure in S7.11.2.1 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, that specifies "Accelerate immediately... after each stop" can be interpreted to permit a maximum rate of acceleration to the initial test speed of 60 mph. You also ask whether, in the case of a vehicle incapable of attaining 60 mph, the S5.1 requirement that it be tested "at the highest speed attainable in the time or distance interval specified" can also be interpreted to permit a maximum rate of acceleration.

Both of these specifications permit acceleration at maximum speed. As in the case of any performance requirement, when a test procedure is not specified, a manufacturer must only "exercise due care" to assure himself that each of his vehicles meets the requirements, by selecting a reasonable test procedure to demonstrate compliance. In fact the NHTSA has consistently stated that, even when a test procedure is stated, a manufacturer may use a different procedure, so long as it is calculated, in the exercise of due care, to demonstrate that the vehicle would comply if tested in accordance with the procedure.

Because the NHTSA has chosen not to specify an acceleration rate in S7.11.2.1 for fade tests, the manufacturer may reasonably choose the maximum or near maximum acceleration rate which ensures the greatest cooling effect in the brake assembly. This interpretation is also true for vehicles which are unable to attain 60 mph and must therefore reach their "highest speed" under S5.1 prior to braking.

Therefore, in both cases cited, you may interpret the procedures to permit acceleration at "maximum rate" as specified in S7.11.3.1.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-1.8

DATE: 06/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 10, 1975 N40-30 (FWS)

Warren M. Heath, Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacremento, California 95804

Dear Commander Heath:

This is a further reply to your letter dated January 21, 1975, asking several questions regarding Standard No. 205, "Glazing materials." We have attempted to incorporate the substance of your questions in our various answers.

1. Prime Glazing Material Manufacturer. A company that buys and then bends or otherwise forms flat plastic glazing material into a motorcycle windshield is not a prime glazing material manufacturer, nor is a company which blows or stretches flat plastic glazing material that is purchased from another company. Prime glazing material manufacturers are only those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material. In neither of the examples you pose is the material fabricated, laminated, or tempered by the company in question.

2. Marking Requirements. In the amendment to Standard No. 205 published November 11, 1972, (37 FR 24035), it was our intention to limit the use of the DOT symbol and manufacturer's code number to the prime glazing material manufacturer. Persons who cut glazing fabricated by others should not under Standard No. 205 utilize the prime manufacturer's code number or the DOT symbol. Our purpose in structuring the marking requirements this way was to enable us to determine, for purposes of attributing responsibility for conformity, which glazing in a motor vehicle had been manufactured by the prime manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle, and which glazing had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation.

(a) You are correct in your interpretation that the DOT symbol and the code number are applied by a prime glazing material manufacturer in addition to the manufacturer's trademark. It was our expectation that the prime manufacturer would furnish his customers with a heat stamp of the markings required by Section 6 of ANS Z26, without the DOT symbol and code number, by which the manufacturer cutting or otherwise shaping the material would mark those pieces he cut or shaped.

(b) Glazing produced by a prime glazing material manufacturer that is not designed for use in a specific vehicle should not contain the DOT symbol or the manufacturer's code number.

(c) The NHTSA has assigned numbers only to prime glazing material manufacturers. We have not inquired, however, whether the company is in fact producing glazing materials for use in specific vehicle applications.

(d) As stated previously, a company which does not manufacture its glazing but which cuts glazing from larger pieces purchased from the producer of the material should not be using the prime manufacturer's code number or the DOT symbol.

(e) You are correct in your conclusion that the marking requirements of the standard do not apply to dealers. However any person (including a dealer) who sells glazing (separately or in a new vehicle) which is improperly marked may be violating Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

3. General Requirements.

(a) Standard No. 205 does presently prohibit dealers from using the prime glazing material manufacturer's code number. If you are aware of instances where this requirement is not being followed, please forward to us the particulars of the cases in question and we will take appropriate action.

(b) Manufacturers who purchase glazing in large sheets and then cut it to fit window frames are not prime manufacturers and may not use the DOT symbol or manufacturer's code number. You are therefore not correct in your statement that a manufacturer of a window assembly may use the prime manufacturer's number even when the window manufactured is for a special application.

(c) The model number of glazing used in motorcycle windshields should be that which is assigned to it by the prime glazing material manufacturer in the glazing's original thickness. ANS Z26 calls for testing plastic glazing materials in substantially flat specimens, and not in molded specimens. However, the Federal standard does not require testing. Manufacturers are required only to use due care in the manufacture of their products. A person "reforming" the plastic does not thereby become a prime glazing material manufacturer.

(d) The markings which should appear on plastic bubbles on minivans should be those of the prime manufacturer (not the DOT symbol or code number) of the glazing material and not those of the person who reshapes the glazing.

(e) A material marked AS4 that was used as a motorcycle windshield would technically fail to conform to the standard as the standard does not provide for the use of AS4 materials in motorcycle windshields. However, if the material also conformed to the requirements of AS6 (which is permitted to be used in motorcycle windshields), the nonconformity would not be considered significant.

(f) Our basic approach has been that the standard applies to the vehicle locations specified in ANS Z26, and to any glazing (glass or plastics) used in those locations. However, opaque plastic materials which are clearly structural materials do not fall within the ambit of Standard No. 205.

(g) Standard No. 205 presently limits the use of plastic glazing materials in buses to readily removable windows, which include push-out windows. Plastic materials may not be used in buses in fixed quarter panels or sliding windows that are not readily removable.

We believe our reasons to be valid for limiting the use of the DOT symbol and manufacturer's code number to glazing manufactured by prime manufacturers for use in a specific vehicle location. However, we would certainly be willing to consider steps you might suggest to facilitate State inspections that are consistent with the purposes of the labeling requirements presently in effect. Such a suggestion should be in the form of a petition to amend Standard No. 205 and should be specific.

Sincerely,

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-1.9

DATE: 10/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 16, 1975, letter to Mr. John Carson of this agency, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination. You requested an interpretation of the footnote to Table 1 of the standard which reads: "Framed areas may be filled".

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interprets this footnote as permitting the vehicle manufacturer the option of depicting the interior of a symbol to which it applies with the same color as the boundary of the symbol, as an alternative to depicting the interior with the same color as the background. In the hazard warning signal symbol, which consists of a triangle containing a smaller triangle, only the area between the triangles is part of the interior. The center of the small triangle is part of the background. Therefore, only the first and third of the sampels submitted with your letter are permitted. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of the samples indicating which ones are permitted.

SINCERELY,

September 16, 1975

John W. Carson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I am writing this letter in regard to the hazard warning signal symbol mark in FMVSS 101 which reads:

"Framed area may be filled"

I would appreciate it very much if you could choose the best sample which I have drawn below. Please check if they are good or not good.

Thank you.

(Graphics omitted)

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Naoyoshi Suzuki

Staff, Safety

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-2.1

DATE: 10/15/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The B. F. Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your August 30, 1975, letter concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to tires which the manufacturer expects to be used on both passenger cars and trailers.

S2. of Standard No. 109 specifies:

This standard applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. . . .

Similarly, S3. of Standard No. 119 specifies:

This standard applies to new pneumatic tires designed for highway use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers and motorcycles manufactured after 1948. . . . (emphasis added)

These standards are mutually exclusive. Therefore, dual markings indicating compliance with the performance requirements of each are not permitted. A tire whose predominant contemplated use is on passenger cars is subject to Standard No. 109, even if the manufacturer knows it will also be marketed as a trailer tire. The choice of standard to which the tire will be certified should be made by the manufacturer. The NHTSA will accept a manufacturer's good faith determination of the applicable standard. You should note that if the tire is certified as conforming with Standard No. 119, its use as original equipment on passenger cars is prohibited by Standard No. 110. (The proposed Standard No. 120, however, would permit the use of passenger car tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, subject to a 10 percent load rating correction factor.)

Please note further that a tire which is subject to Standard No. 109 must be of a size designation listed in Appendix A of that standard. Conversely, any tire labeled with a size designation which is listed in that appendix is subject to Standard No. 109.

The final paragraph of your letter discussed "certain types and classes of equipment [determined by the NHTSA to be] non-trailers by definition." You appear to be referring to vehicles which are not "trailers" because they are not "motor vehicles" or items of "motor vehicle equipment" as the latter terms are defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. No Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply to units which are neither motor vehicles nor motor vehicle equipment. The manufacturers of such units may equip them with tires of their choice.

ATTACH.

The B. F. Goodrich Company August 30, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Executive Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

We at B. F. Goodrich seek an agency interpretation under current Rules, Regulations, Orders or Standards as to the specific performance requirements called for a passenger tire when its expected use is known or contemplated to be put into service as a trailer tire.

As you are undoubtedly aware, prior to the effective date of MVSS 119 (49CFR 571.119-effective March 1, 1975) certain sizes of passenger tires were used as trailer tires, particularly with certain light trailers such as boating and/or horse trailers. Light trailers of this class appear to meet the definition of a "trailer" as defined by 49CFR 571.3(c) as:

"Trailer means a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

For certain size tires. The B. F. Goodrich Company has passenger tires, which of course, in order to be marketed as a passenger tire must be in compliance with and meet all requirements of MVSS 109 (49CFR 571.109); in those instances where the tire has the potential for use on a trailer, must such tire additionally meet and comply with all requirements of MVSS 119?

We are aware that MVSS 120, as of current date, remains NPRM for which an effective date is not yet established and which when issued will, to a substantial degree, further identify and control use and application of trailer tires through the designation of rim sizes for such tires.

We additionally seek further clarification as to just how such a dual-use tire should be identified and marketed; e.g. should the tire be marked with the MVSS 109 identification (applicable when sold as a passenger tire) and separately marked with the MVSS 119 identification (applicable when sold as a trailer tire) or in the alternative, would dual identification demonstrating compliance with both passenger and non-passenger tires be acceptable?

Further, it has been brought to our attention that your agency has designated certain types and classes of equipment as non-trailers by definition; such non-trailer equipment is readily illustrated as compressor units, cement mixers, welding units and the like which are frequently used by the construction industry for portable movement in and about construction sites. Normally, such equipment is an integral unit in and by itself, in that it does not carry "persons or property" which are detachable from the unit, which factor could cause such units to be identified as "non-trailers" and accordingly not reach necessity of compliance with requirements recited by MVSS 119. It is understood that such units are not intended for highway use and that when transported from one construction site to another, they are carried on a transport trailer specifically designed for highway movement of such equipment. Many manufacturers of such units desire to continue the use of passenger tires for this type application and if prior interpretations of your agency has identified and placed such units outside the scope of S1 of MVSS 119 (e.g. "for tires for use on multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles"), we request that such classes of "construction use equipment" be identified so that our passenger tires may be properly marked for such application.

Very truly yours,

C. D. McCarty -- Staff Attorney

cc: R. D. Buehler; J. L. Ginn; W. G. Wilson

ID: nht75-2.10

DATE: 09/09/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 14, 1975, concerning the permissibility of placing arrow-shaped markings on tire sidewalls to show the locations of the treadwear indicators.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 specifies certain labeling requirements for passenger car tires. Standard No. 119 specifies similar labeling for tires designed for use on vehicles other than passenger cars. Although the arrows which you have described are not required by either of these standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to such markings provided that none of the required label information is omitted.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 14, 1975

Ref. No. H1/67

James Schultz -- Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schultz:

We have been informed that the Japan Automotive Tire Manufacturers Association has decided to issue a new standard on marking of wear indicators.

The standard requires that all kinds of passenger car tires and truck and bus tires, in Japan, have arrow-marks on both sides of the tire to show the locations of tread wear indicators.

The below shown drawings are details of the arrow-marks:

(Graphics omitted)

We assume that some of the tires with the arrow-marks will be exported to the United States, occasionally.

Therefore, we would like to ask you a favor by telling us whether or not the tires with arrow-marks are illegal in the U.S.A..

If they are illegal, please explain what law prohibits the tires with the arrow-marks.

We would very much appreciate it if you could give us the answer within this week.

If it is convenient for you, we would like to visit with you to discuss this matter at 2:00 PM on July 17, 1975.

Thank you for your cooperation, in advance.

Yours truly,

HIDEKIMI INOUE -- Manager-Technical Liaison

ID: nht75-2.11

DATE: 11/06/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 1, 1975, to Mr. A. Y. Casanova, Office of Crash Avoidance, concerning the rapid loss of air test specified in S4.4.1(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

The test procedure specified in the above cited section of Standard No. 110 requires operating the test vehicle, equipped with the tire and rim combination to be tested, at 60 mph and rapidly deflating the tire. Rapid deflation can be achieved by any method that brings the deflated tire to a full "flat" state while the vehicle is still traveling at 60 mph. Among these methods are:

(1) running the test tire over a V-shaped knife edge,

(2) exploding a small detonation cap to puncture the tire,

(3) evacuating the tire by means of an instrumented vacuum system, and

(4) pulling out the value stem.

Once the tire is deflated, the vehicle is brought to a controlled stop. The tire must remain on the rim.

You specifically asked the position of the beads after the conclusion of the test procedure. The standard requires that the rim retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped. "Retain the deflated tire" means that the tire beads must be within the rim. The beads need not remain on the bead seat during this test, e.g., one bead may drop into the wall of the rim. However, at no time shall a tire bead be outside of the rim so that the rim is operating on the inside of the deflated tire.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 17, 1975

U. S. Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Motor Vehicle Programs, Office of Standards Enforcement

Gentlemen:

Please send me one copy of the following publications and if there is a charge please bill us.

1. "Laboratory Procedures for Tire Testing & Data Reporting" latest issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 109/117

2. "Laboratory Procedures for Tire Testing & Data Reporting" Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 119

I will look forward to your early consideration of this matter.

Very truly yours,

T. Umeda, Technical Representative -- The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.

August 1, 1975

A. Y. Casanova -- Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Safety Bureau, Office of Operations Systems

Dear Mr. Casanova:

Re: FMUSS #110

As I discussed on the phone, I am very interested in the test procedure concerning the "Rapid Air Loss Test". Please give me more information about this matter.

I would like to especially know the bead position after the test is finished.

Attached please find the letter which I sent to your office on June 17, 1975.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration in this matter.

Very truly yours,

T. Umeda -- Technical Representative, The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.

ID: 9358

Mr. David Shapiro
RV Designer Collection
Woodbridge, Inc.
Glenview, IL 60025

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your inquiry about the applicability of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials to aftermarket products. You state that you are planning to market fabric window coverings such as drapes and fabric bedding such as bedspreads for use in recreational vehicles. In response to your request for confirmation that Standard No. 302 does not apply to aftermarket products, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that directly apply to the products you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 302, which specifies requirements for the flammability resistance of materials in the occupant compartment of new vehicles. However, Standard No. 302 would not apply to your products because that standard applies to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment.

I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your products. Under the Safety Act, your products are considered to be items of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your products contain a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I note that even though Standard No. 302 would not apply to your product, the product's flammability characteristics could be relevant to whether it contained a safety related defect.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." This section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from installing your product in used vehicles if the effect of such installation was to render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 302.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your products were placed in vehicles by the vehicle owners, your products would not need to meet any FMVSSs. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, we suggest you consider conforming your product to a flammability resistance standard equivalent to Standard No. 302.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:302 d:2/10/94

ID: 9388r-2

James E. Schlesinger, Esquire
Schlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey
3000 South Eads Street
Arlington, VA 22202

Dear Mr. Schlesinger:

This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of this office in which you posed certain questions relating to the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR 575.104. Reference is also made to our letter to you dated February 23, 1993, in which we addressed certain other of your questions concerning the UTQGS.

In your most recent letter, you set forth a very complicated factual scenario about certain events which occurred during 1990-91, and which involved three companies. At the end of the letter you asked, with respect to each company, whether the company was in violation of one or more provisions of 49 CFR Part 575. You also asked whether, in addition to the penalties for violation of the UTQGS as set forth in 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Act or Safety Act), there are "additional sanctions requiring the manufacturer or brand name owner to recall unlawful product or notification procedures intended to identify unlawful product in the marketplace."

The purpose of our interpretation letters is to explain or clarify the meaning of our standards and regulations. Our letters are not intended to be adjudicative in nature. Given that the issues you raise about the three companies concern past conduct, involve complicated factual issues, and ultimately relate to whether a violation of the UTQGS has occurred, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to issue an interpretation letter concerning them.

It would be appropriate, however, to clarify a statement made in our February 23, 1993, letter. The second paragraph from the bottom of page 2 of that letter states:

Although both the Act and the UTQGS are silent as to whether tires can be imported or distributed without the UTQGS information, there would be no point in doing so since the tires cannot legally be sold without that information.

Please note that 102(5) of the Safety Act defines "manufacturer" as including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, an importation of non- complying tires would be considered a manufacture of non- complying tires under the Act. Thus, if a tire is required to be manufactured with certain information molded into or onto the tire sidewall, it may not be imported without such molded information. Any person doing so would be in violation of 108(a) of the Act.

Should you wish this agency to investigate whether there has been a violation of the UTQGS, you may write to Mr. William A. Boehly, this agency's Associate Administrator for Enforcement, at this address, providing all relevant facts in detail. If you wish to discuss enforcement policies with this office, you may contact Kenneth Weinstein, Esq., our Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, at this address or at (202) 366-5263.

With respect to your last question, we assume you are referring to Part B of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq., which requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of replacement equipment to provide notification of, and a remedy for, safety-related defects and noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards prescribed pursuant to 103 of the Act. Those provisions do not apply to tires that fail to comply with the UTQGS, since the UTQGS were not "prescribed pursuant to section 103." Rather, they were prescribed as consumer information regulations pursuant to 203 and 112(d) of the Safety Act.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:575 d:3/21/94

ID: 9395

The Honorable David L. Boren
United States Senator
621 North Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Dear Senator Boren:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas Price, concerning this agency's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to require medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with an antilock braking system (58 FR 50739, September 28, 1993). Mr. Price states that the agency's proposal is discriminatory and would exclude his braking system from being considered for future use.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the NPRM in response to a requirement of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. As discussed in the NPRM, a copy of which is enclosed for your information, the proposed requirements are intended to increase heavy vehicle stability and control during braking, and thus significantly reduce the deaths and injuries caused when these vehicles jackknife or otherwise lose control during braking.

The purpose of publishing an NPRM is to provide all interested persons an opportunity to comment on regulations being considered by the agency. NHTSA then considers all of the comments before reaching a decision concerning whether to adopt the proposed requirements as a final rule.

Thus, if an interested person, such as Mr. Price, believes that a proposed requirement is unnecessarily design restrictive or otherwise objectionable, the appropriate place to make that argument is in a comment on the NPRM. Mr. Price has in fact submitted extensive comments to NHTSA concerning this proposal. Please be assured that this agency will carefully consider Mr. Price's comments, as well as all other comments, before it reaches a decision concerning a possible final rule.

Since NHTSA will reach a decision on whether to issue a final rule and the content of such a final rule only after considering all the comments to the docket, we cannot provide a specific response at this time to the comments raised by Mr. Price. Instead, after carefully considering all comments, NHTSA will provide its responses in the next relevant rulemaking notice, e.g., a final rule or a notice terminating the rulemaking.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Howard M. Smolkin Acting Administrator

Enclosure

cc: Washington Office

ref:121 d:12/23/93