ID: nht74-3.6

DATE: 01/15/74

FROM: W.G. MILBY -- BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

TO: RICHARD DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/19/74 FROM RICHARD DYSON TO W.G. MILBY; N40-30 [ZTV], STANDARD 108; REDBOOK (-)

TEXT: We need a ruling on whether it is legal to use rear stop lights on a bus as follows:

1. When brakes are applied rear stop lights are steady burning under all conditions.

2. Place gearshift in reverse - two backup lights are energized and the two seven inch and two four inch rear stop lights flash at a frequency between 60 and 120 cycles per minute.

The purpose for such a system is to give school pupils and others additional warning in addition to the backup lights when the bus is in reverse gear and would not interfere with the stop light function. Thanks for an early reply.

Yours very truly,

ID: nht74-3.7

DATE: 12/11/74

FROM: GERHARD P. RIECHEL -- ATTORNEY VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA INC

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- OFFICE OF THE CHEIF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: STANDARD 105 - FAILURE INDICATOR LAMP

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/28/75 FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA TO GERHARD P. RIECHEL, RED BOOK (-); STANDARD 105-75

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

This is in reference to our meeting of Friday, November 22, and previous telephone conversations concerning the permissibility of Volkswagen's brake failure indicator configuration for use in connection with 1976 model vehicles.

We have understood Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS 105-75 read in conjunction with S5.3.1(a)(1) to permit deactivation of the failure indicator lamp whenever the brake system is not under pressure, that is whenever brake activation terminates. Mr. Bloom informed us that this understanding did not accurately reflect the intent of the language of the Standard nor the purpose that its authors sought to achieve.

While we appreciate the difficulty of drafting regulations dealing with complex technical subjects, we believe that the language of the rule should be accorded priority where a contrary intent and purpose are not readily apparent. We have closely examined each notice issued by the NHTSA in the course of the lengthy rulemaking process relating to Standard 105 and find nothing that would have aided us in ascertaining the claimed intent of the rule.

It should also be noted that unlike certification, recall and record keeping regulations promulgated by the NHTSA, its safety standards are addressed to design engineers, who are accustomed to working with measurable and ascertainable values and conditions. A "gross loss of pressure," an engineer would justly maintain, simply cannot exist in the absence of any pressure in the brake system. One could argue that had the rule's authors intended the indicator lamp to remain activated as long as the brake system was so grossly defective that it was incapable of building up pressure, terms similar to "inability to build up pressure" or other such language would have been chosen. There is little doubt that our engineers chose that meaning, which most closley conforms to the letter of the standard, and totally unaware of the subsequently disclosed "intent" of the rule, acted responsibly in designing and developing a brake failure warning and indicator lamp configuration, which now is ready for production and use in connection with 1976 model cars.

Description of the Volkswagen Brake Failure Warning System and its Advantages Over Other Systems

Volkswagen uses a dual chamber master cylinder, which provides operating pressure to both brake circuits. The system is so designed that leaks in one circuit will not affect the performance of the other circuit. An electrical warning system, which is actuated by a pressure switch in each of the two brake circuits, which is located in the master cylinder, causes a red indicator lamp on the instrument panel to light up whenever a gross loss of pressure occurs in one of the two circuits upon application of the brake pedal with a control force of not more than fifty (50) pounds. The two pressure switches perform dual functions. Under normal operating conditions, they operate the tail brake lights. Both pressure switches are actuated simultaneously as the result of pressure built up in each circuit. In the case of a gross loss of pressure in one of the circuits, the pressure switch for the other circuit is actuated and in turn illuminates the tail brake lights and the warning indicator lamp upon application of the brake pedal. When the brake pedal is released, the warning and tail lights are deactuated.

This type of pressure failure warning system has certain advantages and, we believe, is superior to warning systems incorporating latching relay components, which allow the warning lamp to remain activated even if the brake pedal is released. Latching relay components have the disadvantage that they operate only in the event that a failure occurs. Unused, they may become increasingly unreliable as the vehicle ages. There is no way of checking, short of dis-assembly, whether or not they are operative. With the increasing age of the vehicle, possible malfunctions due to corrosion and other causes remain undetected until such time as the actual pressure loss occurs. Volkswagen's warning system offers a means of checking and assuring continuous operation throughout the life of the vehicle.

Additionally, since the Volkswagen pressure switch does not only sense a pressure loss but also any malfunction in the switch itself, which, if it occurs, would activate the indicator lamp, the driver is made aware of any deficiency in his braking system.

The Volkswagen warning system also enables the vehicle operator to distinguish between a pressure failure signaled by the warning light being deactivated upon release of the brake pedal, and a loss of brake fluid. In the latter instance, the warning light will remain activated independent of any brake pedal activation.

Notwithstanding the unpublished intent of the rule, which was unknown to us until recently, we believe there is ample support for our claim that the Volkswagen design falls squarely within the interpretive parameters of the Standard's language. We therefore believe that our design is permissible under the law without further rulemaking.

In the event that the NHTSA should disagree with this view, we respectfully request that the effectiveness date of Paragraph S5.3.3 to the extent that it makes reference to Paragraph S5.3.1(a)(1) be postponed until September 1, 1976.

Volkswagen is currently committed to produce the system described above and in more detail in Attachments 1, 2, and 3.

In order to meet the alleged intent of the rule, it will be necessary to redesign our current warning system in several respects. Attachment 4 shows the circuit diagram of the new system, and Attachment 3, the changes that are necessary in the lamp housing in order to accommodate the additional components. The changes are marked in red pencil.

Enclosed as Attachment 5 is an estimate of the cost that we anticipate in acquiring new tooling and in tool modifications for the purpose of incorporating latching relay components into the warning system of each of the models offered for sale in the United States. Note in particular the high costs that will be incurred for our two new models, the Rabbit and Scirocco. The single largest cost factor in this case involves major changes on the dashboard support structures on these models to receive the larger components of the new lamp assembly. The dashboard changes as well as the modifications of the instrument panel insert are marked in red pencil in the drawing enclosed as Attachment 6. The total cost for new tooling is estimated to be approximately $400,000. The cost to the manufacturer of the additional components that must be installed in 1977 vehicles is approximately $4 per car.

Redesign and preparation for production including development of the additional tooling is estimated to require approximately 20 months.

Your favorable consideration of our request is appreciated.

Sincerely,

ENCS

ID: nht74-3.8

DATE: 07/17/74

FROM: JACK R. GILSTRAP -- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

TO: RICHARD B. DYSON, -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

COPYEE: CHARLES R. SHARP -- GM

TITLE: FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/05/74, FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA TO JACK P. GILSTRAP; N40-30 [ZTV]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 12/26/73 FROM WARREN M. HEATH TO JACK R. GILSTRAP

TEXT: Dear Mr. Dyson:

On April 30, 1974, the Southern California Rapid Transit District entered into a contract with GMC Truck & Coach Division of General Motors Corporation for the furnishing of 200 heavy duty transit buses. This purchase is funded under a Capital Grant from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of the Department of Transportation.

The specifications for these buses required the provision of spare wires serving the clearance and marker lamps around the roof of the bus, as well as the installation of a silent flasher in the engine compartment. This additional wiring was required in order to enable the District to install dual-filament bulbs in the corner clearance lamps. The 32 candlepower filament of these bulbs would be connected in a manner to be put into operation in a flashing mode as a part of an experiment in improving safety onboard transit buses. In December 1973, the District received a permit from the California Highway Patrol to install flashing lamps in the corner clearance lamps. A copy of this permit is enclosed.

The flashing lamps are controlled by a hidden switch which can be secretly activated by the driver in the event of a hijacking, robbery or other crime in progress on the bus. This same switch activates a radio silent alarm on those buses which are radio equipped. In addition, all District buses have identification numbers painted on the roof. These features, the flashing lamps, the radio silent alarms, and the roof numbers are all part of a program initiated jointly by the District and law enforcement agencies in an attempt to combat the growing incidence of crime onboard public trans buses. The District presently operates more than 1700 buses outfitted with these flashing lamps as approved by the California Highway Patrol. Most of the local law enforcement agencies have expressed to the District the opinion that the flashing lamps are a significant aid in spotting a bus with a crime in progress. No objections or complaints have been received.

2

General Motors, although it did not take exception to the Specifications prior to award of the contract, has now advised us of their refusal to manufacture the buses with the specified additional wiring. The purported grounds for their refusal is that to do so would violate the intent of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, in particular, Paragraph S 4.6, even though GMC has not been requested to connect any operating lamp or other device to this wiring.

The District's interpretation of Paragraph S 4. 6 is that it applies only to turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps and school bus warning lamps as cited therein. It is not the intent, nor would it be a permitted practice, to activate the flashing crime warning lamps at the same time as, or in conjunction with, any of the lamps cited in Paragraph S 4.6. In any case, it is the District's interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that the mere provision of wiring would not create or constitute a violation on the part of GMC.

Nevertheless, General Motors has asked that we obtain an opinion from your office that the installation of the additional wiring by GMC would not constitute a violation of FMVSS 108. The District is prepared to take full responsibility for installation of any flashing lamps under the experimental permit issued by the California Highway Patrol in December 1973. Please note that buses of the District do not operate in any service outside the State of California.

Should there be problems of which the District is not aware we request that you consider this letter as a petition for the amendment of FMVSS 108 to allow the installation and use of dual filament flashing bulbs in the corner clearance lamps to signify a crime in progress onboard a transit bus.

Should you have any questions of a legal nature, please contact Miss Suzanne B. Gifford, our Assistant General Counsel. If there are questions on mechanical or technical matters, please contact Mr. Frank Barnes, our Deputy Administrator of Operations.

We would appreciate your consideration of this matter.

Cordially,

ID: nht74-3.9

DATE: 01/01/74 EST

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 01/01/75 (EST) LETTER FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO ALLEN B. FREDHOLD OF K-B AXLE COMPANY INC.; N40-30 (TWH) LETTER DATED 4/16/75 FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO GEOFFREY R. MYERS OF HALL AND MYERS; UNDATED LETTER FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO ADDRESSEE UNKNOWN

TEXT: De

This responds to your April 22, 1974, question concerning the certification responsibility of a small manufacturer of trailers that must conform to Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. You ask if road testing of any or all vehicles produced would be necessary to satisfy the requirements.

A manufacturer must "exercise due care" in certifying that the vehicles manufactured by him comply with the applicable standards (National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, @ 108(b)(2), 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(2)). What constitutes due care in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the time to elapse before a new effective date, the availability of test equipment to small manufacturers, the limitations of current technology, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.

A small manufacturer of standard and custom trailers might fulfill his due care responsibility to assure that each of his trailers is capable of meeting the standard in several ways. For example, he could establish categories of models which share a common brake and axle system and certify them all on the basis of tests on the most adverse configuration in the category. Calculations should be written down in such a case to establish that reasonable care was taken in these decisions.

Alternatively, joint testing might be undertaken with a trade association or with a major supplier of brake and axle components. In the case of standard models, you might be able to rely on the supplier's warranty of his products' capacities.

Neither of these methods would require road testing of each vehicle manufactured, nor would every model have to be road tested. A manufacturer must simply satisfy himself that the trailer is capable of meeting the stopping performance requirements if it were tested by the NHTSA.

Yours truly,

ID: nht74-4.1

DATE: 06/07/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Breeze Corporations Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 8, 1974, asking whether persons installing on a new vehicle a device called the Breeze Jacknife Control are required to certify the conformity of the vehicle to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. You indicate such a device would ordinarily be installed after the truck leaves the factory.

Persons who install components on or otherwise modify completed vehicles before their sale to a purchaser for a purpose other than resale may be vehicle alterers under NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568), and if so are required to certify that the vehicle as altered conforms to applicable standards by attaching to it a label containing specified information. A label must be attached when the alteration either involves components which are not readily attachable or whose installation renders invalid the vehicle's stated weight ratings. Modifications to a completed vehicle after its purchase for purposes other than resale, however, do not give rise to any certification or labeling requirements.

Copies of the Certification regulations and information on obtaining copies of all NHTSA requirements are enclosed.

ID: nht74-4.10

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 11, 1974, request for approval of Toyota's banding design to meet the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, for labeling brake hose assemblies.

The NHTSA interpretes a band as a label which encircles the hose completely and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, of course, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it cannot easily be removed. You should be able to determine the compliance of your labeling method with the standard. It does appear that the Toyota label does not encircle the assembly and attach to itself. The NHTSA does not approve specific designs in advance, in any case, because the material, installation method, and underlying material can significantly affect the quality of a specific design.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

June 11, 1974

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 106

We would like to request clarification of S5.2 of Standard No. 106, "Labeling," as published in theFederal Register on November 13, 1973 and amended on February 26, 1974.

S5.2.4 reads as follows:

"Each hydraulic brake hose assembly, . . . , shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly. The band may at the manufacturer's option be attached so as to move freely along the length of the assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fittings. The band shall be permanently etched, embossed or stamped, in block capital letters and numerals at least one-eighth of an inch high, with the following information: . . ."

On the basis of our understanding of this section, we constructed a prototype plastic band to be attached to the neck of the end fitting. The band was made of plastic because of the rust problem that occurs in metal bands during corrosion testing. On the band the figures "DOT TG A/B," where A represents the numeral for the month and B the last two digits of the year of production, are permanently etched. While the band can be removed manually if desired, it will definitely not fall off during vehicle usage.

With the original of this letter, we have attached a sample of this band. Please let us know whether or not you think that it will meet the requirement.

As this is a very urgent matter, your expeditious reply will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Y. Veda

for K. Nakajima

Director/General Manager

Factory Representative Office

ID: nht74-4.11

DATE: 07/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Linch-Jones Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 4, 1974, inquiring as to the validity of your odometer disclosure statement.

The odometer disclosure requirements prescribed at 49 CFR Part 580 specify that a seller must provide his purchaser with a written statement that declares the mileage indicated on the vehicle odometer at the time of the transfer. If that mileage is known by the transferor to differ from the number of miles actually traveled by the vehicle, this must also be included in the disclosure statement in the form specified in the regulations.

The statement suggested in your letter inserts the word "may" into the aspect of the disclosure statement pertaining to mileage registration that is inaccurate for reasons other than calibration error. Although the statement as you have phrased it is not a direct violation of the Act, it is in conflict with the intended purpose of the disclosure statement to inform the purchaser of a vehicle as to the accuracy of the mileage registered on the odometer. In order to accomplish this purpose it has been determined that where the seller of a vehicle has good reason to believe that the mileage registered on the odometer differs from the vehicle's true mileage he must so inform the buyer in positive terms. This insures a conscious effort to determine the accuracy of the vehicle's odometer will bemade by the seller and prevents him from transferring ownership of a vehicle in a manner that could mislead the buyer.

In the situation where the transferor is uncertain whether the mileage is accurate, he must determine whether there is a credible basis for an assumption that the mileage is either correct or incorrect. If he has good reason to believe that the mileage is inaccurate, even though he is not positive, he should check the statement saying that the mileage indicated on the odometer is incorrect.

We urge you to phrase your odometer disclosure statement in the manner prescribed in the odometer regulation.

The full odometer statement enclosed in your letter appears correct. However, I should point out that the transferor's signature and the date of the statement must appear on the form in order for it to be complete.

For your information I am enclosing a copy of the odometer regulation which includes the odometer disclosure statement form.

ENCLS.

June 4, 1974

National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration, D.O.T.

Chief Counsel:

I request an interpretation as to the validity of our statement (as below).

I state that the actual mileage may differ from odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown.

I also enclose a copy of my odometer mileage statement in total, which is incorporated in the bill of sale, to further add to the clarification of this matter.

Respectfully yours

William E. Linch, President

Linch-Jones, Inc.

CAR INVOICE

GERMAN AUTO BROKER

LINCH-JONES INCORPORATED

131 Honeysuckle Lane

Smyrna, Georgia 30080

SOLD TO

ADDRESS

DATE

Make

Body Type

Year

Model

Vehicle Identification No.

Sold "as is."

PRICE OF CAR

EXTRAS:

OPTIONAL EQUIP. & ACCES.

LICENSE TAG SALES TAX

TOTAL

Odometer Mileage Statement

Federal regulations require you to state the odometer mileage upon transfer of ownership. An inaccurate statement may make you liable for damages to your transferee, pursuant to Section 409 (a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, Public Law 92-513.

I. , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described below is miles.

I further state that the actual mileage may differ from the odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown.

ID: nht74-4.12

DATE: 07/10/74

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

TO: Flyer Industries Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 5, 1974, question whether electric trackless trolley coaches are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act of 1966, and if so, whether Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, or any other special requirements must be met by this type of vehicle. Section 102(3) of the Act defines motor vehicle:

"Motor vehicle" means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

An electric trackless trolley coach is a motor vehicle under this definition, and Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, applies to a coach equipped with an air brake system. No special requirements apply to trackless trolley coaches. Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, requires stopping distance performance which must be met by any bus equipped with air brakes, whether or not it is equipped with supplementary dynamic braking means. In evaluating a vehicle's compliance with the stopping distance performance requirements of S5.3 and S5.7.2.3, auxiliary braking devices may be utilized in making the stops provided such devices are engaged by means of the same service brake pedal or parking brake control that operates the air brakes. It should be noted, however, that these stops must be made with the transmission selector control in neutral or the clutch disengaged (S6.1.3).

FLYER INDUSTRIES LIMITED

June 5, 1974

Department of Transportation

Att: Office of Legal Information

ELECTRIC TRACKLESS TROLLEYS

File: 600 E13, E75/50

Dear Sir,

We are currently in the negotiation stages for an order to manufacture a number of electric trackless trolley coaches for a number of U.S. transit properties.

These vehicles are similar to standard diesel buses in that they are fitted with air brakes, cir suspension, and power steering. Coaches also have electrical braking of the rear wheels.

We would be interested to know if HVSS 121, Air Brake Systems Trucks, Buses and Trailers, is applicable to electrically driven vehicles operating from overhead wires. Are there any other special regulations that must be met by this type of vehicle?

Yours very truly,

A. Deane

Director of Engineering

ID: nht74-4.13

DATE: 07/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: University of Virginia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1974, asking whether there are any Federal laws that would have a bearing on the University of Virginia's contemplated decision to purchase a tire grooving machine to regroove tires that will be used on buses operated by the University.

The NHTSA has recently amended Federal "Regrooved Tire" regulations (49 CFR 569, copy enclosed) to prohibit any person from regrooving his own tires (49 CFR @ 569.7). The regulation would apply to the University with respect to the tires you contemplate regrooving for use on university buses, and should certainly bear on your decision to purchase a tire regrooving machine.

The amendment to the regulation resulted from litigation National Association of Motor Bus Owners v. Brinegar, 483 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1973) in which the United States Court of Appeals held that under section 204 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1524) Congress authorized this agency to permit only the sale of regrooved tires.

There are presently some efforts being made in the Congress to amend the Safety Act to alter the effect of this court decision. No final action of any kind has been taken, however, and we do not know whether or when such action might be taken.

ENC.

ID: nht74-4.14

DATE: 07/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 24, 1974, asking that the NHTSA reconsider its decision to extend the time period within which it will normally respond to petitions for reconsideration. You also suggest that public meetings be held following the deadline for receipt of petitions.

Although the NHTSA appreciates the need for expeditious handling of petitions for reconsideration, it has become clear through the years that a shorter deadline for action than 90 days after the closing date for receipt of petitions is not practicable. In order to give full consideration to the points raised in the petitions, a period of 90 days from the closing date for petitions is often necessary and in the public interest. Every attempt will be made to remain within this limitation.

With regard to your suggestion that a public proceeding be held after the receipt of petitions, in general such proceedings have been found unnecessary at this stage in the rulemaking process. Written submissions have proven more helpful than oral discussion during this phase, since they tend to provide more constructive information and "hard data." In cases where a public meeting appears advisable, we will of course not hesitate to hold one.

Thank you for your comments.

AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS OF AMERICA

June 24, 1974

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

On April 25, 1974, a notice was published in the Federal Register extending from 90 days to 120 days from publication of a final rule, the time period during which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will normally respond to petitions for reconsideration. It is the unanimous view of the member companies of the Automobile Importers of America (AIA) that this extension of the NHTSA response time is not in the public interest and that you should reconsider this policy change in light of the following:

(a) With few exceptions, manufacturers must initiate changes in production tooling and order appropriate materials from suppliers promptly after issuance of a new or revised standard in order to meet the specified effective date. Since the deadlines for such production decisions are often short, delay on the part of NHTSA in responding to a petition can serve, in effect, as a denial of the petition.

(b) Manufacturers are allowed a 30-day period after publication of a standard to transmit the text to the factory, translate it to a foreign language (in most instances), construct and perform tests on special prototype vehicles or components, determine the conformance, producibility, and cost of an appropriate design, and, if significant problems are encountered, prepare a Petition for Reconsideration to the NHTSA. In view of this, it does not seem unreasonable to expect NHTSA personnel to respond to the petition within 60 days - double the time allowed for preparation of the petition by manufacturers

It is recognized that rule making decisions are often difficult since they are complex technically and since to serve the public interest, many points of view must be considered. Accordingly, we would suggest that if petitions for reconsideration are received, a public proceeding be scheduled closely following the deadline for such petitions. This would facilitate understanding of the problem and possible solutions and assure consideration of all points of view. In addition it would assure the consideration of the petitions on a timely basis, and provide a forum for the presentation of information adverse to as well as in support of the petitions. Finally, the record of the proceeding would, we believe, be of considerable use to your staff in facilitating and expediting the disposition of petitions.

Ralph T. Millet President